Best Way to Calculate FPS Pace Figures?
 

What handheld programmable calculator (or other method) does anyone reccomend to quickly calculate Feet Per Second (FPS) Pace figures. I’m guessing it’s possible to do with excel also, so is anyone willing to share their spreadsheet. They are a pain to calculate by hand and I’m looking for a faster way to do it. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

There really isn't a fast way to do it by hand. If you buy files that have the data already in predefined fields it can be automated. DRF Formulator allows you to export the data from past performances and results files are available as well. Other companies offer similar. The data can go into an Excel sheet or an database table and you can get what you are looking for quickly.

As for the formula, it is this:

((RaceDistance - PaceCall2Distance) x 660) / (FinalTime - PaceCall2Time)

So, for example, you have this race:

Distance: 7 furlongs
PaceDistance: 4 furlongs
Final Time: 82.50
PaceTime:46.20

(( 7 - 4) x 660) / (82.50 - 46.20) =
1980 / 36.3 = 54.545 fps

You can do it pretty easily on a programmable calculator. It would look something like this:

Enter Distance: 7
Enter Final Time: 82.50
Enter Pace Time: 46.20

FPS = 54.54545454


You can omit entering the pace distance with a few if / then statements, like if distance < 8, pacedistance = 4, else pacedistance =6. (That can get more complicated if you expand beyond 9.5 furlongs but it isn't that tough.

Thank you for your detailed response! Does anyone use/recommend a programmable calculator to calculate FPS numbers? I would just prefer a programmable handheld calculator because then it could easily be done at the track without carrying a laptop like excel would require.

Also in excel how do you account for the change in beaten lengths? Sorry I know this might be a noob question but I want my pace figures to be correct!

I'll reply later (on phone now) with adding in the beaten lengths. There are options in the PPs where you can show the times for the horse and not the race and eliminate that step.

I used to use a TI-82 which I'm sure would still work if you can find one. There are probably newer, fancier versions available now.

If you use the TFUS adjusted times, it is easy.
That is what I do - just use the horse's times and forget about beaten lengths.
I do it in Excel.

This is a screenshot of one of the spreadsheets I use - it is the Hals Hope race this year. Not all the fractions are in this one, but you get the idea.

If you want a copy, PM me and I will send you one.

Quick note on how to adjust for beaten lengths. As mentioned, you can usually get the horse times via the PPs if using something you can customize like Formulator or TimeformUS. I think BRIS has the option as well if PP Generator is still supported. But if not, you would need to adjust the times as follows. This could easily be programmed in a TI-82 or Excel, but with the calculator it would require two additional inputs, beaten lengths at the pace call and beaten lengths at the finish.

In the examples I use 9 feet per length. People may say 8 is better, or 10 is better, but in the end it doesn't matter. The various photo companies are using 9 feet to calculate beaten lengths at the finish so it is best to stick with that. There are 660 feet in a furlong.


Formula:

TotalFeetOfCall / (( TotalFeetOfCall - BeatenLengths * 9 ) / TimeOfCall ) = HorseTime

Example 1: Pace call four furlongs, 46.20 call time and horse is 5 lengths behind.

2640 / (( 2640 - 5 * 9 ) / 46.20 ) = 47.00

Example 2: Race distance seven furlongs, 82.50 final time and horse is 3 lengths behind

4620 / (( 4620 - 3 * 9 ) / 82.50 ) = 82.98

For the most part, you'd be pretty safe just adding 0.16 per beaten length for sprints, 0.17 for routes. But if you want precision, the above will work.

Thankyou all for your detailed responses; very helpful! I plan on buying a TI-82 for use at that track now and will use excel when ‘capping from home. One last question though for you though CJ- why do you suggest 9 feet per beaten length than the 10 feet pbl suggested by Brohamer in Modern Pace Handicapping? Have there been more recent studies since he updated it in 2000 that shows 9 feet is more accurate? Thanks again everyone for your help!

According to Charles Carroll in his book Speed Handicapping, eight feet would be the best number to use in reality. But using that or 10 feet will give you misleading times. I checked it many times using video editing software and 9 in the way to go.

I find your specific Sartin formula categories interesting. I take it you found these combination of categories as the most foretelling of a horse's ability?

P.S. Is "PR" pace rating?

Thank you.
PR is "presser rating." It is 2nd fraction averaged with 2nd call - Sartin's old Factor S rating from Contender Scan (also Mitchell's ability rating, I believe)
I like to use all three fractions as well, but left them out of of this version.
I like PR and FW ratings as the best overall ratings. If an Early horse has a better PR than an EP or P horse, it is a good bet to go all the way.

Thank you for your response and insight. I feel bad not knowing what Factor S is [was]. So it is 2FR + 2nd Call (EP?) divided by 2 then?

I noticed you are using the old E% formula. I switched to the newest format, and it seems more accurate and reasonable so to speak.

I do something similar Tom. Once you reach this point you can really experiment and get into the philosophical implications of different ratings. It's not only exciting and instructive but you end up with your own ratings. Some of the ratings here might be familiar but most of the formulas are different. I started tinkering around 2005 and have had 17 different versions of this workbook. I haven't changed them in 3 years. Using some of the Pizzola concepts in conjunction has been some good work!

I have found the best way to do it is to pay someone else to generate all of them, more time for handicapping.

May I ask what is the newest formula for % E ? Thanks

Hi Secondbest,

It is now this, and it seems to make a little more sense versus the old formula:

(1FR + 2FR) divided by (1FR + 2FR + 3FR)