If he fails in the Travers, imo it won't be because those efforts took too much out of him. It will be because his actual ground loss overstated his efforts on those days and he hasn't developed much since 2. So the other faster developing 3yos are passing him by.

I'm trying to say that I have Game Winner's performance in the Kentucky Derby, significantly better than his Santa Anita Derby.

They were both good performances but I agree that considering his ground loss in the Derby, that performance was superior.

I'm bumping my own thread (sorry) because there were quite a few interesting comments in here. Maybe it can pick up again.

These may have been posted in the past, but the first one has some interesting stuff in it and the second may appeal to some of the real math wizzes and physics guys.

http://www.goto4winds.com/horse/dynamics-of-turns.html

https://blog.stryd.com/2020/01/09/ho...ves-and-turns/

I started with the second one. It doesn't surprise me that running a turn doesn't cost much speed. The key is how much distance you travel extra. That certainly adds to the time it takes to run a race.

The second is similar to what I've found. Using one length per path is too much. Obviously all tracks are different the 1 to 1 ratio exaggerates wide trips if you adjust time that way.

That's what I've found too.

I don't have a way to quantify it all. To be honest, there are times I'm not sure what to make of a trip because of offsetting pluses and minuses.

This is more or less what I think

1. Ground loss matters

2. It's generally easier for horses to run faster when making wider turns. So that and maybe track banking probably offset some of the literal ground loss when a horse is wide

3. Ground loss matters more when the pace is fast because extra energy is expended keeping up with rivals inside and it matters less when the horse can improve it's position just coasting up in a slow pace

4. Horses on the rail are saving ground and energy, but they sometimes give up position waiting for an opening

5. Even when the rail is not bad, it seems like being wide is not much of a disadvantage at some tracks unless it gets extreme (on many days)

6. It seems when handicappers talk about good rails they aren't always talking about the same thing. For some, a good rail means it's moving horses up and for others it means saving ground is the advantage you'd expect

7. When you throw path biases into the mix all hell breaks loose because paths are not uniformly good or bad around the whole track and it's not always just one path that's advantageous or disadvantageous

Good posts. As you indicated there are so many nuances to this factor, I reached a point long ago where I wondered how much of a benefit it would even be so I never worked to implement it with my speed figures, however I do think if we have the actual data we'll see some impact to the times and could make a generic adjustment (for overall slightly increased accuracy).

The one thing I would insist upon is actual data though, that is, not what math expects to happen to the times based upon distance traveled and whatever else they want to bring into the mix, ankle pulleys (hmm maybe they mean pasterns? lol) but rather the actual data points, real cause and effect.

As a trip handicapper I try not to judge the impact of ground at all until I first understand the flow during the segment. Pace is so critical to assessing the impact of ground loss IMO that getting a handle on it has to come before ground.

I'm very attuned to what I call overextension (essentially overexertion, pacing, how class is applied during the running etc) and ground can be critical to observing this because when two horses are head and head going into the far turn and if the pace quickens there's resistance being created. If the inside horse edges forward a half length on ground alone that will often cause the outside horse to overextend itself physically/mentally in an attempt to match strides, therefore the half length on ground is sometimes enough to do real damage. Once horses go that very last bit over the edge to quicken and still not make headway that's it, they'll hit the stretch very flat and they've had enough for the day.

Once in a while you'll run into a horse that I call pace immune. These horses are rare but they run in their own world basically, you don't run them off their feet on class, they know better, the jock is just a passenger, doesn't matter who you put up they'll be around at the end, you pass them like they're standing still and they're one-paced all the way. These are herd horses, they're usually consistent hangers that run pretty much the same speed figures every race. They'll run a 60 Beyer in a cheap claimer and could probably run a 60 in a grade three stakes race when any other cheap claimer would run a 30.

I routinely see horses who lose races solely because of the wide trip that they had to endure during the race. But, how can I give extra credit to the performances of these horses, when I am pretty sure that they will attempt the same wide move the next time they run?

Agreed. That's another issue. You can make some educated guesses based on post position, running style, and the running style of the horses inside and outside, but it's a lot like projecting pace. You'll get more right than by randomness, but you'll get a lot wrong.

That's exactly how I see it.

It's not necessarily the small fluctuations of pace that matter much. It's when you hit the breaking point of that specific horse. Then the energy use starts growing exponentially (or something like that). That usually happens when an inferior horse is chasing or battling to keep up with a superior horse. When they are very similar in speed and quality, then both may crack.

Watching the turns is especially helpful with bias determination.

If the horses on the outside losing ground keep coasting up easily even when the pace is quickening (or vice versa) it's telling you something about the track.

Agreed again.

Years ago, I would make small adjustments to my speed figures when horses moved up or down in class. It's a kind of backdoor way to adjust for the easier/tougher race developments and paces that are likely at different classes.

But I would run into horses (usually mid pack runners or closers) that would basically run the same figure no matter what class they were in. Typically they didn't engage, chase, try to keep up, or try to get themselves into the race. They just did their own thing and then ran late. It was the classic suck up style. My formula would overrate them when they dropped in class. So I'd ignore the formula.

Ground Loss is Not Always a Loss
 

definitions:


drafting or covered position - The cone of acceptance is when a competitor’s position:

1. falls within 10 degrees to either side of the forward velocity vector of a thoroughbred race horse (TBR), and
2. is within 5m distance of that TBR.

All other positions are uncovered.

length - 2.5m


Given (on the average):

1. The metabolic power required by a TBR to overcome aerodynamic drag is about 17% of its total mechanical power.
2. The difference in average speed between first place and fifth place is about 2 per cent. This could be accounted for by a 13 per cent reduction in aerodynamic drag.
3. Each "wide" around one turn ~.79m.

Example (on the average):

1. A TBR moving from 0-wide (rail) uncovered to 1-wide covered at a turn will lose ~.79m in ground loss.
2. That same TBR will recover the mechanical power that it lost from its .79m ground loss in .79m/17% = 4.65m of covered locomotion through reduced aerodynamic drag.

Therefore, ground loss can result in a TBR's reduction of metabolic energy expenditure as compared to a less-wide trip around turns.

Where are you getting that?

2.59 feet?