Adios to the Yonkers passing lane

[pandy]

You bring up a good point about handicapping bikes. Everytime a new generation of sulky came in only one or two drivers would have the new bike at first and they therefore had an unfair advantage. Often only professional bettors and sharp handicappers who watched these things closely knew this, and that screwed up handicapping because horses would run surprisingly better than their past performances. This was very obvious at Roosevelt and Yonkers when Joe King's modified sulky came in in 1977. Tom Merriman and Butch Dokey had the bikes and were suddenly beating superstar drivers Herve Filion and Carmine Abbatiello. Bettors were left out in the cold, terrible.

I've mentioned the wheels, in fact, I noted the sulkies and wheels in my letter to Harness Racing Update last Sunday. However I think the bikes add to the speed much more than the wheels. The sulkies that are used now are 10 inch off centered which puts the horse ten inches closer to the pylons, plus the bikes are lighter and more aerodynamic and hitched higher on the horse. From an engineering standpoint, there's a huge difference between the wood bikes and the ones being used now. But there's also math. With some of these bikes, when they first appeared, the races literally went much faster. The modified sulky was easily two seconds faster on a half and three to four seconds faster on a one mile track. In 1978 and 79 all of the track records changed drastically. The horses didn't magically get four seconds faster. Then when the first off set bike came in, The Harmer, in the early '90's, that was also a few seconds faster than the other bikes and once again speed records fell. As a professional handicapper who also bets every day, I followed these things closely. And, of course, I've corresponded with a few professional harness bettors over the years and they were always right on top of it. When these new bikes come in, the pros have their binoculars out and they bet the new bikes.

[wilderness]

Bob,
You've missed the point!
Although your commentary and analysis is worthwhile.

What reduces friction? That's the real innovation neither published or spoken of.

I'll give you a hint.
In the 1890s when the pneumatic wheel came into being, besides the wheel itself there was another little publicized innovation.

Further hint?
There's a great controversy with an 1890s horse (Nancy Hanks) and to whether or not Nancy Hanks used the un-mentioned innovation in the high-wheel-sulky (pre-pneumatic tire/wheels) to set a then record.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by wilderness

Bob,
You've missed the point!
Although your commentary and analysis is worthwhile.

What reduces friction? That's the real innovation neither published or spoken of.

I'll give you a hint.
In the 1890s when the pneumatic wheel came into being, besides the wheel itself there was another little publicized innovation.

Further hint?
There's a great controversy with an 1890s horse (Nancy Hanks) and to whether or not Nancy Hanks used the un-mentioned innovation in the high-wheel-sulky (pre-pneumatic tire/wheels) to set a then record.

I do think the wheels are better, and that adds to the speed. But an aerodynamic sulky also reduces friction. Right?

[wilderness]

Yes, agree.

However there is something making a much more dramatic improvement today's harness racing times, and as it did 1892's harness racing.

Another hint?
Watch an old western with a blacksmith working on a wagon wheel an pay attention to what's missing.

[wilderness]

Originally Posted by pandy

I do think the wheels are better, and that adds to the speed. But an aerodynamic sulky also reduces friction. Right?

Bob,
Some years back they began selling and using those wheels that track-straight (reduced slant) at retail of around $1,500 for two wheels.

However innovations have even improved on those.

[pandy]

All I know is, slow is better. I remember when the Meadowlands interviewed some of the drivers, two of them, one was George Brennan, said that no one wanted to pull first over because the pacesetter was setting such a fast third quarter fraction. That's why no one pulls until late on the third turn at Yonkers, and no one goes three wide down the backstretch like they used to. The result is, most races are won by the horses that are close to the pace, usually the leader or the pocket horse, sometimes the first over horse. No outside posts, no closers.

[wilderness]

Bob,
The breed itself has changed as well, and continues to change (even since the time of George's statement.)

Time as a handicapping tool is simply not as prevalent as it once was.
'Time' used to dictate 'Class', however that hasn't been so in more than 25-years.

The breed has simply changed and horses race faster and with longer brushes, making speed more dominant.
Attempting to figure the pace of a harness racing (in a T-Bred manner) is impossible, because it's nearly impossible to determine what horse, driver or bike are leaving.

[pandy]

And that's part of the problem. On half mile and five eighth tracks in particular, you can't look at a race with a lot of front runners and play a closer. No matter how fast the pace is, often the pacesetter can set a brisk pace and hang on, or, the pocket horse gets up. It's hard to rally wide from off the pace. The fact that the drivers lean far back also hurts because the horses sitting in the rear are several lengths farther behind.

In thoroughbred racing, class and pace prevails. If the pace is hot, closer's win. In route races, class shows.

Years ago in harness racing, class handicapping was important. You wanted horses that could grind and finish. Now cheap speed wins much more often.