|
What IF?
Figure makers tried something a little different? For example what if, a study was conducted to measure some or all of these factors and then assign a number, or Ft/sec. that directly correlates to these factors?
Possible factors that may correlate:
a. average depth of soil(dirt) at different points on track from rail
b. compaction number or durometer of track
c. stickiness factor? something like the viscosity of liquids.
d. waviness of surface(ruts, even grade, etc)
e. air humidity and percent of moisture in track surface(top several inches)
d. composition, sand, soil, ground up rubber, etc.
e. surface temperature/air?
To shoot holes in my own idea, these figs would have to measured every day, even throughout the day, and we can't even get timing into the mid-20th century technology at this point. Never having been a trainer like several on PA, some of Ruffian's comments a while back about the depth of the dirt in certain paths from the rail were kind of eye opening to me. I did have the opportunity to walk on the Penn's track many years back, and the depth of the dirt was surprising to me. This past year I was playing and watching races at Parx and after a few races, the track crew came out between races, and re-surfaced the track. 6 furlong times dropped by >3 seconds in the next several sprints, although the classes were relatively the same.
I'm not contending that all of the above factors have the same degree of correlation to ft/sec. but what if two of them are highly correlated? It would be nice to know what those factors were.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
|
