Checking 1 length =.02 sec using trakus

[jasperson]

Has anyone check the accuracy of .02 sec = 1 length using trakus data? I did it for fridays races at GPX. The average for the 11 races was .o187.
races
1 .0185 8.5f mc16500
2 .0228 14f c25000
3 .022 6.5f a54000
4 .018 8.5f a39000
5 .0177 5f turf c75000
6 .0192 6f mc16500
7 .016 5f turf msw
8 .02 6f c17500
9 .0183 8f ng65000
10 .0168 8f turf ng65000
11 .0172 8.5f turf c29.5

It looks like 1 length on turf is faster than on dirt. I don't want to re-invent the wheel so if somebody has already done an indepth study of this I would like to know the results

[maddog42]

Has anyone check the accuracy of .02 sec = 1 length using trakus data? I did it for fridays races at GPX. The average for the 11 races was .o187.
races
1 .0185 8.5f mc16500
2 .0228 14f c25000
3 .022 6.5f a54000
4 .018 8.5f a39000
5 .0177 5f turf c75000
6 .0192 6f mc16500
7 .016 5f turf msw
8 .02 6f c17500
9 .0183 8f ng65000
10 .0168 8f turf ng65000
11 .0172 8.5f turf c29.5

It looks like 1 length on turf is faster than on dirt. I don't want to re-invent the wheel so if somebody has already done an indepth study of this I would like to know the results

This is surely wrong, because it bears no resemblance to reality. Figuring 495 lengths in 6 furlongs (8 ft/length), you get .145 seconds per length in a 72 second finish. This sounds like a mistake was made somewhere.

[Greyfox]

Has anyone check the accuracy of .02 sec = 1 length using trakus data?
It looks like 1 length on turf is faster than on dirt. I don't want to re-invent the wheel so if somebody has already done an indepth study of this I would like to know the results

Don't you mean .2 sec = 1 length?? (.02 seconds are 2/100 ths of a second.)

[jasperson]

Don't you mean .2 sec = 1 length?? (.02 seconds are 2/100 ths of a second.)
Sorry decimal point wrong in the data.

[ranchwest]

A length is NOT a time measurement. It is a distance measurement. (We have discussed this ad nauseum)

The time to traverse a length varies. Trying to assign a time to a length is a fruitless project. Horses almost always slow down as a race progresses, so the time associated with a length is different throughout the race and also varies by factors such as class level, wind, distance and surface.

Handicappers got started assigning a fixed time to a length because it was an easy way to make calculations when there were no computers available.

[Rigger]

I started out 40 yrs ago using the 0.20 for a length. It did pay-off. I took a computer course and learned a little in programming a basic excel workbook. With trakus, I found you can now get the feet per second and what a horse length is at each call point, programmed and correct to .03/second using an algorithm. The final time of any horse can also be programmed to +/- .03 seconds for most of the top finishers in a race really quick. This helps in speed races quite a bit. With a basic program, you can also linear estimate a horse that run 6F, what his time will be running in a 6 1/2F race and 7F race, one turn. I have been playing around with this for quite a few years and find it fun.

[raybo]

As Ranchwest mentioned: 1/5 second = 1 length, 5 lengths = 1 second, was strictly designed to ease the calculations for adjusted times for each horse in a race, and is - well - just flat wrong. Time per length or vice versa is totally dependent on how fast the horse is running at the time. The best you can hope for is an accurate average time per length, for each fractional call and the finish call.

Anyone who is still using 1/5 second per length, or in fact, any static time per length is way behind the curve. This kind of stuff is what computers are for, use them.