AQU Inner Track - nice knowing ya

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The thing about Saratoga past labor day is their attendance numbers drop pretty far late in the meet. They would probably drop more.

But some of Forego's greatest races were at the Aqueduct summer meet.

And I could now be onto something with my thread about how Belmont might be closing - and with Colonial Downs and its 1 1/4-mile dirt track apparently gone for good, closing Belmont would leave North America with no dirt track larger than 1 1/8 miles.

[Red Knave]

Originally Posted by SG4

Love it or hate it, the AQU inner track is no more.

PA, does that mean I'll NEVER win the RidersUp contest?

Color me bummed out!

[KPMats10]

Originally Posted by HuggingTheRail

I may have missed it in the details, but any idea what this renovation is going to cost?

Panza was quoted as saying $3 million was the cost

[KPMats10]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

This move was also made with the Breeders' Cup in mind: Since there are now turf sprint races in the Breeders' Cup, it would not have been feasible to run the Breeders' Cup at Aqueduct in its up-until-now configuration.

Another thing I would like to see done is to bring back the old Aqueduct summer meeting, which can begin the Wednesday after the Belmont Stakes, which can be held on Belmont's closing day. That way, the big 1 3/16-mile (the Suburban Handicap and Brooklyn Handicap had been run at that distance at various times) and 1 1/14-mile (the Dwyer was contested at 1 1/4 miles during the Aqueduct summer meet) dirt stakes races can be run there, running them at Belmont giving far too great an advantage to the inside posts - and to avoid cutting the length of the Saratoga meet, it can always be extended if necessary, as if it hasn't been extended before - and is there anything in either the Ten Commandments or the U.S. Constitution that states that thou shalt not race at Saratoga past Labor Day? Then the end of the Belmont fall meet can be pushed back as well to avoid shortening that either.

Aqueduct is open enough during the winter, why take away from Belmont's beauty and spacious backyard?

Aqueduct has no real grandstand seating for patrons and no backyard area for people and families to sit, picnic and just have themselves a good time.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Maybe that other thread was right. Maybe Belmont is going to be torn down after all and they're just getting ready for the inevitable...

PA I'll guarantee two things...

1. One of them is gone within the decade. The land is too valueable. There's still some big pieces of land available for big projects in the outer boroughs and eastern Long Island. As they go away sooner or later it will be one of them.

2. The $3 million for the new turf course will have zero impact on which track goes. Whatever replaces them will be a billion dollar project. $3 million is couch change.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

This move was also made with the Breeders' Cup in mind: Since there are now turf sprint races in the Breeders' Cup, it would not have been feasible to run the Breeders' Cup at Aqueduct in its up-until-now configuration.

Another thing I would like to see done is to bring back the old Aqueduct summer meeting, which can begin the Wednesday after the Belmont Stakes, which can be held on Belmont's closing day. That way, the big 1 3/16-mile (the Suburban Handicap and Brooklyn Handicap had been run at that distance at various times) and 1 1/14-mile (the Dwyer was contested at 1 1/4 miles during the Aqueduct summer meet) dirt stakes races can be run there, running them at Belmont giving far too great an advantage to the inside posts - and to avoid cutting the length of the Saratoga meet, it can always be extended if necessary, as if it hasn't been extended before - and is there anything in either the Ten Commandments or the U.S. Constitution that states that thou shalt not race at Saratoga past Labor Day? Then the end of the Belmont fall meet can be pushed back as well to avoid shortening that either.

Saratoga is one of the few things in racing that works and is highly successful as is. Why would you want to mess with it just so there can be an Aqueduct summer meeting?

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

PA I'll guarantee two things...

1. One of them is gone within the decade. The land is too valueable. There's still some big pieces of land available for big projects in the outer boroughs and eastern Long Island. As they go away sooner or later it will be one of them.

2. The $3 million for the new turf course will have zero impact on which track goes. Whatever replaces them will be a billion dollar project. $3 million is couch change.

As far as the likelihood of Aqueduct or Belmont being sold for development, I'm somewhere between your chance of it happening and PA's. I definitely agree with the second point though. This is an effort to have fewer 5-horse fields and has nothing to do with what track is still standing 10 years from now.

[classhandicapper]

If Aqueduct is open for a summer while they are renovating or overhauling Belmont, what happens to the Belmont Stakes on the 1 1/8th mile oval.

[Thomas Roulston]

But if there are two meetings before Saratoga instead of one, it means that more soft-turf races get to stay on grass, and fewer 4- and 5-horse off-the-turf races.

And did you read my post, classhandicapper? They wouldn't move to Aqueduct until after the Belmont Stakes.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

And did you read my post, classhandicapper? They wouldn't move to Aqueduct until after the Belmont Stakes.

I wouldn't be the end of the world to run the Belmont Stakes at AQU around 3 turns, but if they are really going to do a major overhaul of Belmont eventually, it could take more than a year. It depends in the extent of the project. There was talk of building a brand new grandstand on the other side of the track.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If Aqueduct is open for a summer while they are renovating or overhauling Belmont, what happens to the Belmont Stakes on the 1 1/8th mile oval.

What happens to the 3yo triple crown preps they have now?
Drop back to a mile or go to nine? Gotham back to a mile?

[Thomas Roulston]

Once again, the pre-1977 Aqueduct summer meeting did not begin until after the Belmont Stakes - the Wednesday after the Belmont specifically.

In addition, the pre-1975 Aqueduct outer turf course was one mile plus 124 feet; the inner turf course, 7 furlongs plus 187 feet.

If the rail between the present Inner Dirt Track and turf course were dismantled, the result would be the same as Arlington, Gulfstream, and Laurel, where a whole array of rail settings and distances are possible: With a Monmouth-like diagonal backstretch chute, 6 1/2-furlong turf races are possible, along with 7 1/2 furlongs on the turf with the rail, delineated with a new hedge, at 0 feet. That's only a 1-furlong gap between the longest one-turn turf race and the shortest two-turn turf race.

This also means that the rail between the hedge and the rail on the dirt can be removed entirely, allowing for super-large fields.

[Tom]

...the result would be the same as Arlington, Gulfstream, and Laurel, where a whole array of rail settings and distances are possible:

Just what we need, more permutations of turf rail/run ups.

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by Tom

Just what we need, more permutations of turf rail/run ups.

These can be limited to create the requisite increment of distances only (Example: The rail would be set far off the hedge to allow 6 and 6 1/2-furlong turf races). I am not advocating the Byzantine regime of "lanes" deployed at Gulfstream and Arlington.

[thespaah]

Ok...Call me confused...
Here is statement one
"The inner track had a limestone base that enabled it to handle winter weather better than the main track, which had a clay/silt/sand base.
This statement appears to infer that the main track which has clay as a component which is not conducive to winter use.
Now....Read this
"The main track will have a limestone base and a sandy loam cushion, according to Glen Kozak, NYRA’s director of racing surfaces."
Ok...looks good, right?
Now in the next paragraph there is this....
"“The only thing that we’ll be doing to the cushion is add clay to hold moisture and tighten the track up.”
Ok..So he says the clay in the base is not good for winter racing. But clay in the cushion is ok for winter racing.
I could be off base here ( no pun intended) but if clay is eliminated from the base because it does not make for a good winter track, then why add clay to a track they are preparing for winter racing.
Now, If there is one thing regarding soil in which I am well versed and that is clay. Here in NC, you cannot get away from clay. Its the dominant soil content of this region. And yes it does hold moisture. And when it does get cold enough here, the soil surface tends to freeze very rapidly. More moisture means the freezing temp of the soil surface is raised.
So, with the clay in the track cushion, the main track will have to be harrowed deeply to avoid any freezing potential in the cushion....
BTW, if anyone has spent any time here in the Charlotte region and seen or walked through wet clay soil, they will tell you that stuff is stickier than Gorilla Glue.