lightning fast Belmont track

[sbcaris]

The Belmont track was lightning fast on June 11, 2016. Frosted raced a mile in 1:32 3/5 which is 2/5 of a second off of Dr. Fager's World Record Mile of 1:32 1/5 which he accomplished with 134 pounds back in 1968. No horse has ever gone faster in the last 49 years on a dirt track. Najran tied that record but no horse ever raced a faster mile than 1:32 1/5 on dirt.

[Tom]

Track was so fast, when I printed the charts, it only took half the time.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by sbcaris

The Belmont track was lightning fast on June 11, 2016. Frosted raced a mile in 1:32 3/5 which is 2/5 of a second off of Dr. Fager's World Record Mile of 1:32 1/5 which he accomplished with 134 pounds back in 1968. No horse has ever gone faster in the last 49 years on a dirt track. Najran tied that record but no horse ever raced a faster mile than 1:32 1/5 on dirt.

Tracks were a lot faster then, and there were more breakdowns. Belmont has deepened its cushion by several feet since then, which is why we have to adjust track speed with a variant.
Having said that, Belmont was indeed lightening fast on 6/11/16 but even adjusting for track speed, Frosted ran one of the fastest races in history.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Tracks were a lot faster then, and there were more breakdowns. Belmont has deepened its cushion by several feet since then, which is why we have to adjust track speed with a variant.
Having said that, Belmont was indeed lightening fast on 6/11/16 but even adjusting for track speed, Frosted ran one of the fastest races in history.

The depth of the racetrack surface is tertiary in determining the retarding forces against a race horse’s speed performance.

The primary force is air resistance followed secondly by wind resistance.

A very good post was recently posted by the poster, Magister Ludi which gives very a good insight into a horse’s surface performance. It is a worthwhile read because it dispels some of the beliefs about a horse running performance on the racetrack surface.

[Tom]

Anyone ever prove this?
With real world data?
Should be easy to do.

Take Belmont, turf and dirt this past weekend and compare it to the same surfaces over a good track, preferably one where the figure makers say it was slow.

[Magister Ludi]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Tracks were a lot faster then, and there were more breakdowns.

A properly tuned racetrack will not only be fast, but will also be safer for the horses. On a soft track, the ground is not resilient enough to quickly bounce back when it is impacted by a horse’s hooves and energy is lost to the track. On a hard track, the bounce frequency is too fast and energy is lost to the track by the horse. On an optimally-resilient racetrack, the horses will recover much of the energy that they’ve imparted to the track.

A drop hammer test or a going stick test can be used to measure the penetration and shear of the track as a guide in tuning the resilience of the track.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Magister Ludi

A properly tuned racetrack will not only be fast, but will also be safer for the horses. On a soft track, the ground is not resilient enough to quickly bounce back when it is impacted by a horse’s hooves and energy is lost to the track. On a hard track, the bounce frequency is too fast and energy is lost to the track by the horse. On an optimally-resilient racetrack, the horses will recover much of the energy that they’ve imparted to the track.

A drop hammer test or a going stick test can be used to measure the penetration and shear of the track as a guide in tuning the resilience of the track.

That is why synthetic tracks have significantly fewer fatal breakdowns. The rubber in the surface increases resiliency as well as cushioning impact forces.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Cratos

The depth of the racetrack surface is tertiary in determining the retarding forces against a race horse’s speed performance.

The primary force is air resistance followed secondly by wind resistance.

A very good post was recently posted by the poster, Magister Ludi which gives very a good insight into a horse’s surface performance. It is a worthwhile read because it dispels some of the beliefs about a horse running performance on the racetrack surface.

Air resistance remains constant and wind resistance evens out over long periods of time so that can be considered a constant. The variable here is the depth of the track cushion which correlates with track speed. The cushion in Belmont's 70's surface was much less deep and the times were brilliant. Keeping air resistance constant, the deeper cushion now is producing slower times, with a few exceptions. None of this diminishes the effect of air resistance.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Tom

Anyone ever prove this?
With real world data?
Should be easy to do.

Take Belmont, turf and dirt this past weekend and compare it to the same surfaces over a good track, preferably one where the figure makers say it was slow.

Crickets.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Air resistance remains constant and wind resistance evens out over long periods of time so that can be considered a constant. The variable here is the depth of the track cushion which correlates with track speed. The cushion in Belmont's 70's surface was much less deep and the times were brilliant. Keeping air resistance constant, the deeper cushion now is producing slower times, with a few exceptions. None of this diminishes the effect of air resistance.

Air resistance is not constant for all horses in a race. However air resistance does depends on the density of the air, the square of the velocity, the air's viscosity and compressibility, the size and shape of the horse’s body, and the horse’s body's inclination to the flow.

In general, the dependence on the horse’s body shape, inclination, air viscosity, and compressibility is very complex.

Wind resistance follow similar rules except density isn't the compelling integral metric. Also it is “surface wind resistance” that primarily affects the horse’s performance.

Again, surface resistance is a tertiary retardant to the aforementioned resistances in affecting the horse’s velocity performance. The longer the race the greater the impact of both air and wind resistance which causes more “work” by the horse and since work is measured in joules and energy is measured in joules we find the horse’s energy capacity dissipating along the race distance curve due to the air and wind resistance impacts; surface resistance lags behind those two in terms of impact.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Air resistance is not constant for all horses in a race. However air resistance does depends on the density of the air, the square of the velocity, the air's viscosity and compressibility, the size and shape of the horse’s body, and the horse’s body's inclination to the flow.

In general, the dependence on the horse’s body shape, inclination, air viscosity, and compressibility is very complex.

Wind resistance follow similar rules except density isn't the compelling integral metric. Also it is “surface wind resistance” that primarily affects the horse’s performance.

Again, surface resistance is a tertiary retardant to the aforementioned resistances in affecting the horse’s velocity performance. The longer the race the greater the impact of both air and wind resistance which causes more “work” by the horse and since work is measured in joules and energy is measured in joules we find the horse’s energy capacity dissipating along the race distance curve due to the air and wind resistance impacts; surface resistance lags behind those two in terms of impact.

My point is that while air resistance may vary from horse to horse in a particular race it will become a constant as all the factors you mention will average out over long periods of time. On the other hand track speed can vary considerably over time depending on track maintenance. That makes it the variable impacting speed.
In addition, the effects of a slow track also accumulate as the distance increases.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

My point is that while air resistance may vary from horse to horse in a particular race it will become a constant as all the factors you mention will average out over long periods of time. On the other hand track speed can vary considerably over time depending on track maintenance. That makes it the variable impacting speed.
In addition, the effects of a slow track also accumulate as the distance increases.

As a horse moves through the atmosphere, it displaces the air that surrounds it.

The horse is also subjected to gravity and drag. From applied physics we learn that drag is generated when a solid object moves through a fluid medium such as water or air. Drag increases with velocity; therefore the faster the horse travels, the more drag it experiences.

We can measure a horse’s motion using the factors described in Newton's laws. These include mass, velocity, weight, external force, and acceleration.

I am not going into the math of proving the above assertion, but if you apply the drag equation and the equation for kinetic friction to the performance of the same horse under the same conditions you should see the difference between what you are claiming and what I am claiming.

However I am finished with this and it is not an affront to you, but science is science and its laws are irrefutable.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Cratos

As a horse moves through the atmosphere, it displaces the air that surrounds it.

The horse is also subjected to gravity and drag. From applied physics we learn that drag is generated when a solid object moves through a fluid medium such as water or air. Drag increases with velocity; therefore the faster the horse travels, the more drag it experiences.

We can measure a horse’s motion using the factors described in Newton's laws. These include mass, velocity, weight, external force, and acceleration.

I am not going into the math of proving the above assertion, but if you apply the drag equation and the equation for kinetic friction to the performance of the same horse under the same conditions you should see the difference between what you are claiming and what I am claiming.

However I am finished with this and it is not an affront to you, but science is science and its laws are irrefutable.

No affront taken. I have never challenged the effects of drag. but as you say, science is science, and its laws stay constant. That's why it does not explain why times used to be faster. The variable that has changed is track speed and in the case of Belmont that correlates to depth of cushion.