TimeformUS

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I can see why the "truer" contact on the turf should result in faster times...but why should the horses be closer together?

Don't all the horses' hooves slide equally on the dirt?

If time is a constant, which it is, then the faster you are running the less time it takes to run the same unit of distance. With a faster speed, 1 length is shorter in time, thus the length or distance gaps between horses running equally faster speeds, involves less time. So if you increase the speed of horses equally, the length, or gap, between the horses will be less. (I think, I said that right , The concept can be a bit difficult to wrap one's head around sometimes.)

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by raybo

You're approaching the question from a different point of view than CJ, IMO. He was not explaining why horses run faster on turf/syn than on the dirt, we all know why that is, because the footing is better.

What he was explaining was that since it takes less time to run a static beaten length on turf/syn than on dirt, then each individual unit of time, per beaten length, is worth more on turf/syn than on dirt. That is because when you have fewer individual units of time involved, then each individual unit of time has more value, than if there were more individual units of time involved.

So, CJ is correct, 1 beaten length, on turf/syn, is worth more than 1 beaten length on dirt, therefore the individual units of time are worth more on turf/syn than on dirt, assuming all 3 surfaces were run in the same exact total time.

All other things being equal, a horse beating another horse by 1 length on the turf/syn, would beat the other horse by more than 1 length on the dirt, because he's running more distance per unit of time on turf/syn than on dirt.

Time is constant, you are correct, but the "value, or worth" of that time is "dynamic", not constant. The "value" of time depends on the speed the horses are running, which is faster on turf/syn, slower on dirt.

I understand your explanation, but it doesn’t change anything. What you are suggesting is that surface resistance will allow for each individual unit of time per beaten length to worth more on the turf than dirt is no more than saying that turf is innately faster and that is true because of the true footing; my answer doesn’t change.

You probably can extrapolate this explanation out to the work and energy concept, but that is farther than it is necessary.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I understand your explanation, but it doesn’t change anything. What you are suggesting is that surface resistance will allow for each individual unit of time per beaten length to worth more on the turf than dirt is no more than saying that turf is innately faster and that is true because of the true footing; my answer doesn’t change.

You probably can extrapolate this explanation out to the work and energy concept, but that is farther than it is necessary.

I was just defending CJ's statement that time has more value on turf/syn than on dirt. You said he is incorrect..

What you stated was merely a given; generally turf/syn surfaces are faster than dirt, due to better footing on turf/syn than on dirt. We already knew that. You offered no proof that CJ's statement is incorrect. If you are going to assert that he is incorrect, then you need to prove it, to him, and to the rest of us, because if you are correct then some of us would have to recalculate the dynamic time values of a beaten length, at different rates of travel.

I'm 100% certain that I will not have to recalculate those time values.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

This is not true: “that time has more value on those surfaces.” Time is constant. What is going on between dirt surfaces and turf surfaces is “true footing” and this was proven in an analysis conducted by a MIT professor over 25 years ago.

Horse’s hooves slide when they come in contact with a dirt surface and on the turf the contact of the horse’s hooves are truer and hence the horses can perform in a better time.

Given this, horses will run faster and closer together on turf.

Regardless of the reason, time still has more value on turf than on dirt, just as it has more value at 6f than it does at 10f.

[Tom]

Look at the San Clemente in terms of Beyer's and Timeform. You will see the difference.

[WORKFORCE]

To CJ,

Hi, I am a huge British fan of your methods and it's great to see you've secured the rewards of your work at Timeform, a company I have subscribed to over in the UK.

As a speed rater myself, I wanted to know how you would cope with your methods in the UK without the sectional data that we are missing and would it be feasible in relation to time management at hand timing races or would you have to simply your methods?

I believe without the sectional data in the UK it offers a great platform in gaining an advantage until they become licensed because the work needed in not only data building but maintaining information would be painstakingly hard for anyone on their own.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by WORKFORCE

To CJ,

Hi, I am a huge British fan of your methods and it's great to see you've secured the rewards of your work at Timeform, a company I have subscribed to over in the UK.

As a speed rater myself, I wanted to know how you would cope with your methods in the UK without the sectional data that we are missing and would it be feasible in relation to time management at hand timing races or would you have to simply your methods?

I believe without the sectional data in the UK it offers a great platform in gaining an advantage until they become licensed because the work needed in not only data building but maintaining information would be painstakingly hard for anyone on their own.

I know you didn't ask me (I also work at TimeformUS), but if I was in your position I would use visual skills, the known running styles of the horses, and the results to "try" to determine the pace.

For example, if 2 horses are known front runners, you visually see them running hard early and the jock asking, they separate themselves from the pack, then they tire and finish worse than expected based on their current form, you know the pace was fast.

If a race doesn't contain any well know front runners and the top few go 1-2-3 all the way around the track, there's a good chance the pace was slow.

Those are extreme and obvious cases, but you can often determine the impact of the pace by being familiar with the horses before the race, watching the race, looking at the result chart, and comparing it to the horse's form.

When nothing odd presents itself, more often than not the pace didn't have a huge impact on the result.

[Tom]

Sectionals are out there for some tracks, and Trakus adds distance, which can be a big edge over those not willing to take the time to dig them up.

[nat1223]

timeformus is an excellent product! keep up the good work for those involved.

[WORKFORCE]

Originally Posted by Tom

Sectionals are out there for some tracks, and Trakus adds distance, which can be a big edge over those not willing to take the time to dig them up.

I'm going to spend the next week building sectional data on the All Weather tracks over in the UK. What would you consider significant data to have reliable standards over class and distance? I was looking at 20 races over each distance at say Kempton (5f, 6f, 7f, 8f, 11f, 12f, 16f).

When recording the data should I look at taking CJ's advice for example; record the leader to the;

<8f = 2f and 4f marker
8f = 4 and 6f marker
10f = 6f and 8f marker
12> = 8f and 10f marker

[Tom]

I would use those - them main thinking I did for BC last years was get final fractions for the horses. Now, you will be working with raw times, not pace figures, but use the data you have. Lot of work, but hey, isn't it FUN to do?

[Quagmire]

Does anyone know when the Deluxe PP's will be available from TFUS?

[cj]

Originally Posted by WORKFORCE

I'm going to spend the next week building sectional data on the All Weather tracks over in the UK. What would you consider significant data to have reliable standards over class and distance? I was looking at 20 races over each distance at say Kempton (5f, 6f, 7f, 8f, 11f, 12f, 16f).

When recording the data should I look at taking CJ's advice for example; record the leader to the;

<8f = 2f and 4f marker
8f = 4 and 6f marker
10f = 6f and 8f marker
12> = 8f and 10f marker

I would use the winner, not the leaders. Over a larger sample the winners will run the most efficient races.

As for sectional timing in the UK, you should follow Simon Rowlands on Twitter. He posts a lot of great stuff about sectional handicapping in the UK.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I know you didn't ask me (I also work at TimeformUS), but if I was in your position I would use visual skills, the known running styles of the horses, and the results to "try" to determine the pace.

For example, if 2 horses are known front runners, you visually see them running hard early and the jock asking, they separate themselves from the pack, then they tire and finish worse than expected based on their current form, you know the pace was fast.

If a race doesn't contain any well know front runners and the top few go 1-2-3 all the way around the track, there's a good chance the pace was slow.

Those are extreme and obvious cases, but you can often determine the impact of the pace by being familiar with the horses before the race, watching the race, looking at the result chart, and comparing it to the horse's form.

When nothing odd presents itself, more often than not the pace didn't have a huge impact on the result.

Do you supply the class ratings?

[WORKFORCE]

Originally Posted by cj

I would use the winner, not the leaders. Over a larger sample the winners will run the most efficient races.

As for sectional timing in the UK, you should follow Simon Rowlands on Twitter. He posts a lot of great stuff about sectional handicapping in the UK.

Thanks CJ.