More Trakus issues

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Don't they already give you the number of feet covered. Simple subtraction to get the GL

I don't mind seeing relative GL , it tells you more about the performance at a glance imo


This is the least of their crimes.

I don't think most fans are wanting to be subtracting 4 digit numbers from another. No, it isn't impossible math but is more time consuming. Also how many people know off the top of their head it's 5,610 feet in a mile and a sixteenth race (assuming zero runup)? Or 5,940 in a mile and an eighth? Too many big numbers to remember.

How does relative GL tell one more about the performance? Better off just watching the replay.

[Tom]

So why not a toggle between the two ways?

Knowing the idiots at Trakus, that would only DOUBLE their number of errors.

I trust nothing they put out on their website. Time, distance, even the race date!

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by Valuist

I don't think most fans are wanting to be subtracting 4 digit numbers from another. No, it isn't impossible math but is more time consuming. Also how many people know off the top of their head it's 5,610 feet in a mile and a sixteenth race (assuming zero runup)? Or 5,940 in a mile and an eighth? Too many big numbers to remember.

How does relative GL tell one more about the performance? Better off just watching the replay.

So they are deep enough into the weeds to look at trackus, but not so deep that they can keep track of the number of feet in 7 or 8 different distances?



Got ya.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Valuist

I don't think most fans are wanting to be subtracting 4 digit numbers from another. No, it isn't impossible math but is more time consuming. Also how many people know off the top of their head it's 5,610 feet in a mile and a sixteenth race (assuming zero runup)? Or 5,940 in a mile and an eighth? Too many big numbers to remember.

How does relative GL tell one more about the performance? Better off just watching the replay.

That's it for me. I can't be bothered doing the math in my head and I see inconsistencies from track to track.

6F is 3960 feet.

At some tracks if a horse races right on the rail virtually every step of the way, Trakus will show he ran close to 4000 feet.

At another track you might see 3975 feet.

At another track, you might see 3990 feet.

I'm not expecting the numbers to be exactly 3960, but they should be roughly the same for each track. I am seeing the same exact trip at each of the tracks, but I'm seeing a different number for each. For a few, I more of less know the quirks at the most commonly run distances (like 6F), but if you want to get more accurate you'd probably need to import the data into spreadsheets for each track and see what's normal at that track. Just doing the math in your head or having a little cheat sheet on our desk if you can't remember them all doesn't cut it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's it for me. I can't be bothered doing the math in my head and I see inconsistencies from track to track.

6F is 3960 feet.

At some tracks if a horse races right on the rail virtually every step of the way, Trakus will show he ran close to 4000 feet.

At another track you might see 3975 feet.

At another track, you might see 3990 feet.

I'm not expecting the numbers to be exactly 3960, but they should be roughly the same for each track. I am seeing the same exact trip at each of the tracks, but I'm seeing a different number for each. For a few, I more of less know the quirks at the most commonly run distances (like 6F), but if you want to get more accurate you'd probably need to import the data into spreadsheets for each track and see what's normal at that track. Just doing the math in your head or having a little cheat sheet on our desk if you can't remember them all doesn't cut it.

All the tracks I've seen you deduct about 4 feet per furlong from the reported Trakus distance. It is a built in error. It should be easy to fix but they don't bother.

[AltonKelsey]

trackus confirms that crawlfest in the 12th


How is it possible for them to run that slow early?

[AltonKelsey]

The chart caller, obviously a man of the world, called them 'sensible splits'

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

trackus confirms that crawlfest in the 12th


How is it possible for them to run that slow early?

Isn't this getaway week? Well....they got away with it, didn't even try to hide it....

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

rackus confirms that crawlfest in the 12th


How is it possible for them to run that slow early?

The chart caller, obviously a man of the world, called them 'sensible splits'

The chart caller said, "under the cover of darkness",-my rear end. I watched the race several times, and although it wasn't bright sun, visibility was still good for the naked eyes. Video replays often make outdoor shots without sun slightly darker.

In my opinion, Manny Franco rode a smart race. Not one horse in this race could be called an early type. In all 54 previous races, there's only 1 occurence where a horse had the lead at either the 1st or the 2nd p.o.c. Only 3 times that a horse was running 2nd at 1st/2nd call in 54 races. Nobody normally wants the lead in any previous races. A few could be called pressers, and the rest?? So Manny smartly got the lead and slowed things way down. I noticed the race caller said "they've run the quarter mile in".....(pause). He stopped calling any more breaks or splits at that point. It's no wonder Lady Montdore had plenty left in the stretch, since she ran her last race splits 6-7 seconds faster and still won by 4-1/2. Smart ride.

[Tom]

For the final time - 148.94 - the half and three quarters were a hair fast, and a little more slow at the mile.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

All the tracks I've seen you deduct about 4 feet per furlong from the reported Trakus distance. It is a built in error. It should be easy to fix but they don't bother.

That's one problem we've been aware of from the beginning, but there's something else going on that creates an inconsistency from track to track.

I see the same exact rail trip on 2 different tracks at the same distance and they get different total ground covered numbers that are large enough for me to know it's not what I am seeing.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's one problem we've been aware of from the beginning, but there's something else going on that creates an inconsistency from track to track.

I see the same exact rail trip on 2 different tracks at the same distance and they get different total ground covered numbers that are large enough for me to know it's not what I am seeing.

Interesting. Can you give me two tracks that are noticeably different? I'll like to check it out.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Interesting. Can you give me two tracks that are noticeably different? I'll like to check it out.

1M races on the inner dirt in NY were comically off a couple of years back, but last I checked they were better. When it was off, it was like 2-3 paths off on each turn over what I expected given what I saw for other routes on that track.

The one I notice the most is 6F.

In NY, a rail trip at 6F will usually come back showing 3990 feet plus or minus a little. You will rarely see anything below 3990.

At Delmar, the rail trip is usually in the 3980s and will sometimes even break into the mid to high 3970s. (9/1, 10th race, Beyond Pleasure, 3979)

I don't track it because I don't do anything with the data. I just use it to help me make my ground loss and bias notes, but when I glance quickly at a DelMar race and I see 3995, I know that's different than 3995 at Belmont.

[Cratos]

To measure a moving object’s distance within 99% of the stated distance in a legacy outdoor environment with probable EMI affect is extraordinary, but I could be wrong.

The length of the turns on a racetrack is determined by its radii and the horse during the race runs circumferential to the radii of the race track which means the horse’s inner body side is lying along the outskirts of the race track turn radii; the closeness to the tangent line of the rail is determined by where the horse is positioned in the turn by its rider.

Also, the length of the distance during a race is determined not just by the probable ground loss in the turns, but the derivatives in the straight-away part of the race because a horse does not run in a “perfect” straight line in the straight-away portion of the race.

Furthermore, because of the difference in the radii of two racetracks of the same distance length (e.g., two 1M tracks); there can be and most likely will be a difference in the number of feet run for the same race distance.
However, a solution to this dilemma is the following equation:

Distance = (Final Velocity*Time) + (1/2Acceleration*Time-Squared)

This gives a truer distance because a horse race is the displacement between the start and finish of the race determine by 3 velocity points which makes the displacement a curve not a straight line; additionally, displacement is a function of time.

[classhandicapper]

On the Inner Dirt at Aqueduct a few years back:

I would watch a 1M race and find a horse that ran on the rail every step of the way.

I would watch all the other 2 turn races on the same day and find horses that ran on the rail every step of the way.

Then I would compare the actual distance of each race and the Trakus stated distance for the horses. I wasn't expecting all to show the exact same difference. Since I was using my eyes anything that +/- a few feet would be acceptable. But they were so far apart (the 1m races consistently and significantly different from all the other 2 turn routes ), there had to be an error in how the 1M races were being measured in either Trakus or the actual distance of these races. The problem magically disappeared awhile later.

The 6F issue from track to track is more modest, but still, I don't think 10 feet on average (or thereabouts) from one track to another is just a track configuration issue.