Beyer Speed Figure Math -- Can someone check this?

[highnote]

I was reading some old threads about making speed ratings and also looking at some books by Beyer and am trying to understand how to determine the value of a Beyer Speed Point for various fractions of a second. I think the math below is correct. Would someone mind checking it?

Assume 60 seconds is the par time (standard time) for 1000 meters (5 furlongs)

1000 meters / 60 seconds = 16.67 meters per second

1 second / 16.67 mps = .06 seconds to run 1 meter

.06 seconds = 1 beyer speed point at 1000 meters

Length of a horse is 2.4 meters (about 8 feet)

.06 seconds per meter * 2.4 meters = .144 seconds to run 2.4 meters (1 length)

There are 2.4 beyer speed points per length which is the same as 1 beyer speed point per 1 meter at 1000 meters.

Question:
If .144 seconds = the time it takes to run 2.4 meters (1 length) then how many meters (bsp) = .10 seconds?

Answer:
If .144 seconds = 2.4 meters
And .10 seconds = 1 bsp

.144 =2.4
.10 = x, where x = bsp

So, by cross multiplying you get:

.144x=0.24

x = .24/.144

x = 1.67 bsp per 1/10 of a second

1.67*2 = 3.34 bsp per 1/5 second at 1000 meters (approximately 5 furlongs)

3.3 is the value Beyer uses per 1/5 seconds at 5 furlongs in his book “My $50,000 Year at the Races”.

Another way is:

(1 / (ParTimeAnyDist / 0.01)) * 1000 = bsp per 1/100 second

Then multiply by 10 for bsp per 1/10 seconds

Or multiply by 20 for bsp per 1/5 seconds

[Tom]

2.4 does not equal a length at all distances. It varies, and it has changed from his book. And he uses 5 lengths per second for his speed chart.

Here is what I calculated from PPs last Oct-Dec for each surface for value of a BL. Some blanks, I have not finished the whole thing, just the main distances I see in my handicapping.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Tom, were all of the length-to-Beyer-point-conversion factors changed vs the book (I have Beyer on Speed), or was it concentrated in sprints or routes? If you don't have the numbers handy, I'm sure I can find my book somewhere.

[Tom]

Everything changed slightly.
Turf and Poly were not given, so they are new.

I try to find cases where a horse was beaten exactly 10 lengths, so the decimal value is easily obtained. ( or 20 lengths works too)

I'll try to finish off the blanks in the next few weeks.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I've never made any figures on the turf. Why is a length worth more points on the turf? I assume it's because how the typical pace sets up in a dirt race vs. turf race?

[DeltaLover]

Do not trust Beyers too much! Beyer’s main assumption that “the importance of beaten lengths decreases as the distance of the race increases” is rejected by the related data.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I've never made any figures on the turf. Why is a length worth more points on the turf? I assume it's because how the typical pace sets up in a dirt race vs. turf race?

It's because turf races are usually run faster at the end than at the beginning. A 3 length win on the turf is generally far more convincing than one on the dirt.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by AndyC

It's because turf races are usually run faster at the end than at the beginning. A 3 length win on the turf is generally far more convincing than one on the dirt.

I know that's certainly true in turf routes - is it true in turf sprints, too? Thanks.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I know that's certainly true in turf routes - is it true in turf sprints, too? Thanks.

No, and I don't believe Beyer uses a different adjustment for sprints.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by cj

No, and I don't believe Beyer uses a different adjustment for sprints.

Tom's work shows a differential for turf sprints, too, that's why I was curious.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Tom's work shows a differential for turf sprints, too, that's why I was curious.

I guess it could have changed again, don't really track it any more. The original change was that all turf routes used the 6.5f beaten lengths adjustment.

I personally use a different value for dirt and turf at all distances, but the differences is smaller as the distances get shorter.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Tom

2.4 does not equal a length at all distances. It varies, and it has changed from his book. And he uses 5 lengths per second for his speed chart.

Here is what I calculated from PPs last Oct-Dec for each surface for value of a BL. Some blanks, I have not finished the whole thing, just the main distances I see in my handicapping.

My understanding is that a length doesn't change as the distance changes, but the time to travel one length changes at different distances.

I use hundredths of a second to make my figures because it is all computerized. I use 1/5 of a second here for demonstration purposes.

Plugging my 1600 meter par of 95.92 into this formula results in a different value for 1/5 second compared to the value of a 1/5 of a second at 1000 meters:

(1 / (ParTimeAnyDist / 0.01)) * 1000 = bsp per 1/100 second

(1 / (95.92 / 0.01)) * 1000 = 0.104

Multiply 0.104 by 20 to convert to 1/5 seconds.

0.104 * 20 = 2.09 beyer speed points per 1/5 seconds at 1600 meters.

versus 3.34 beyer speed points per 1/5 seconds at 1000 meters.

This is almost identical to the value of 1/5 of a second that Beyer got for 5 furlongs and 1 mile.

1/5 of a second at 5 furlongs = 3.3 Beyer Speed Points.

1/5 of a second at 8 furlongs = 2 Beyer Speed Points.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've never used the Beyer figures. They are numbers available to the entire universe of horseplayers for the price of a Daily Racing Form, or if you have the time and energy you can do your own calculation. I've always ascribed to the idea that there are four important numbers in a sprint race. The half time, the final time, the interior time (the time from the half mile pole to the quarter mile pole) and the stretch time. Figures essentially translate one into another number for ease and comparability. So a figure of 100 at Oaklawn is comparable to a figure of 100 at Gulfstream.

Take these two running times from two consecutive races at the same distance and class level.

:22 :45 1:10.1

:22.2 :45.4 1:09.4

Which horse is better? It may just be that the horse with the 1:10.1 finish time but a faster pace is just as good as the horse with the 1:09.4 finish time with a slower pace. Obviously there are other things to look at, but the point I'm making is that just looking at finish time leaves may cause you to miss a better bet.

I also have automatic eliminations.

- horses with less than a 10% win percentage

- trainer less than 5%

- trainer/jockey win % less than 10%

One final thought. I want horses cycling to the top of their form cycle. You can get some nice prices with horses that are ready to run a big one. There's a lot more to it for me, but I hope this is useful to some people.

[Nitro]

Highnote you seem to have some real interest in understanding the physics behind the measurement of a horse’s running capabilities.

I generally won’t get involved in discussions like this for a number of reasons. Some of which I posted a few months ago on this thread which might offer some things to consider:

“A Critique of Speed: Fallacies in Creating Accurate Speed Figures”
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=148582
.
.

[highnote]

Thanks! I'll have a look.

Originally Posted by Nitro

Highnote you seem to have some real interest in understanding the physics behind the measurement of a horse’s running capabilities.

I generally won’t get involved in discussions like this for a number of reasons. Some of which I posted a few months ago on this thread which might offer some things to consider:

“A Critique of Speed: Fallacies in Creating Accurate Speed Figures”
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=148582
.
.