relationship between carrying high weight and beaten lengths - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

JPinMaryland · 06-21-2005, 09:21 PM

Is there a stanard formula for how many lengths each pound of added weight will slow down a horse? I found an old thread from another message board that I had printed out years ago and that got me thinking...

My own guess (and it's just a guess) is that it would take 2 lbs of weight to slow a horse down 1 length. Or say, about 15 lbs would shave one sec. off a horses time at say 9 or 10 furloughs.

One example that comes to mind would be the final match of the Dr. Fager/Damascus rivalry. The Brooklyn hdcp, I think, where Fager spotted Damascus 5 lbs. and lost by 2 lengths. Both horses were at their peak and probably ran about true to form.

Only one example, I know, but what do others think?

classhandicapper · 06-21-2005, 09:58 PM

I don't think there is a standard formula.

The Sheets and TG have one formula.

Beyer talks about a formula in "Beyer on Speed" on pages 106-108.

They are probably similar, but I don't think they are exact.

Dave Schwartz · 06-21-2005, 10:21 PM

To my knowledge, every study ever done has shown that horses carrying more weight run faster. While we all know that is due to the horse better fitting the conditions, I believe that prevents anyone from "proving" what the value of a pound gained or lost is.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

JPinMaryland · 06-21-2005, 10:42 PM

be careful in asserting what all of us know. All I know is, that if you were to keep adding more and more mass to a weight carrying machine eventually it would not move. Hence there has to be some relationship between weight and speed. I cant imagine that adding more wt. would make such a machine move faster, but I think I know what you mean...

Figman · 06-21-2005, 11:09 PM

Then why wouldn't it be critical to know what mass the horse was moving each individual race??

In other words, a important factor should be what the horse itself weighed in each race in which it competed in addition to what weight in carried in the form of the live weight of the jockey and the dead weight of the weights in the saddle pads.

In another thread it was reported that a horse on lasix can shed as much as 20 pounds. And in a state like NY, lasix is administered just 4 hrs. before the race.

JPinMaryland · 06-21-2005, 11:25 PM

I just thought somewhere this whole issue might have been quantified already. Wasnt that the whole pt. of the Vosburgh handicap? Cant we go by what weights are assigned and make reasonable guesses as how many lengths that represents?

IN the long dead thread alluded to above (a CBS sports web page I think) they were talking about the fall highweight races and it was pointed out that US and British wt handicapping for age differs. It was thought that the British/European systems added too much wt for 4 year olds, so USA system of wt for age does not add so much. As proof it was pointed out that the Arc de Triomph has been won by 3 year olds quite a number of times. (this was a 1999 discussion so I dont know if its still true)

Well that is weight for age to be sure. I just thought somewhere there might be a quantification of the issue of wt/lengths...

thoroughbred · 06-21-2005, 11:53 PM

Go to our web site: www.revelationprofits.com , click on the "Documentation" Link and then on "Engineering Analysis of Thoroughbred Racing."

A derivation of the relationship between change in weight carried and change in finish time is given in Section II B together with a table of the results.

JPinMaryland · 06-22-2005, 12:05 AM

I'll go to the site, I promise, but just tell me....is it anything like 2 lbs per beaten length? could save someone else a whole lot of clicking.

JPinMaryland · 06-22-2005, 12:24 AM

so you got 1.8 lbs slows a horse down 0.2 sec. at 8f? Pretty close to what I figured and I didnt even have to use Adobe Acrobat.

The other guys formula (Ainsley) 2 lbs per 1/5 sec at 9f; hmmm that's pretty interesting.

Did I tell you how much a hate Adobe Acrobat?

thoroughbred · 06-22-2005, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPinMaryland

I'll go to the site, I promise, but just tell me....is it anything like 2 lbs per beaten length? could save someone else a whole lot of clicking.

JPinMaryland,
You will see, from the table, that it varies depending on race distance.
Your 2 lbs per beaten length is about right for 9 furlongs.

RXB · 06-22-2005, 12:50 AM

I'm not going to get into a full discussion on this issue again but I will just restate that I believe firmly that the Revelation chart overrates the effect of weight--drastically so at route distances.

sealord · 06-22-2005, 12:54 AM

Seems to me like weights only an issue if the horse has proven it can't handle it. With high-weight horses winning more races, it seems moot to even consider it most times. I have read interesting things about last minute weight changes prior to post on race day; someone speculated that certain trainers might actually add weight to a horse for an extra workout when he/she feels the horse can't win anyway. Not my theory, just something I've read. This could lead into a new thread about what trainers do to get better odds next time out......I'd love to hear some stories from you vets out there.

PS-What's so wrong with Acrobat? It's free, and it works on my hunk o' junk.

Dave Schwartz · 06-22-2005, 01:02 AM

I was not suggesting that carrying more weight makes a horse run faster, I was saying that horses that carry more weight do run faster according to statistical studies.

Obviously they do not run faster because they carry more weight, rather it is an indicator of a horse better-suited for today's race.

My point was that it will not be possible to show statistically that less weight produces faster times.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

JackS · 06-22-2005, 01:17 AM

I don't know what the answer is but at least one writer of some book has stated his opinion that weight has little or no effect on final time.
His opinion was that the stance of the jock in the sturrups move's weight forward of the horse during a race.
Maybe a little more logical is the weight itself. Two, three or five pounds place on an animal that weighs half a ton is the equivilent of slowing a man down by forcing him to carry a wallet (empty).
I would never state that there isn't any effect but that what ever the effect is ,it's probably negligable.
For an opposing arguement to this, look into some of the old-timers who swear by weight as a strong determining factor in every race.

kenwoodallpromos · 06-22-2005, 02:44 AM

The only way you can prove what weight does is to find identical horses with the same variables in play: track condition, distance, track size, horse build, etc.
Each horse has a weight barrier at which they run dramatically slower but a lot horses never run with enough weight to do the comparisons with other races of the same horses.
With some cheap claimers the weight is about 121 lbs.