If, for purposes of discussion, ground loss, wind, tides, etc are ignored, and it is assumed that all of races under consideration took place at the same race track, moisture content would appear to be the most important remaining factor in determining the relative speed of the track on a particular day. At this point presumably everyone agrees that it has already been proved that the absence or presence of moisture can change the speed of a track, but little if any consideration seems to have been given to the question of why, from a scientific standpoint, this is true.
According to a paper published by five impressively credentialed scientists, the reason is because of the relationships between changes in moisture content on the energy returned by the track, impact resistance of the track, and the locomotor forces exerted by the horses running on the track. In terms of the energy or force returned by the track, moreover, it isn\'t just the amount; it\'s also the timing of the return. Hence, a track which had a moisture content which resulted in a quicker return of energy would theoretically favor a faster horse, which exerts a greater pressure but which has its feet on the ground for a shorter time.
Though done for safety rather than handicapping purposes, the results of their research confirms just that. Slower horses are arbitrarily defined as those running 14.5-15.4 meters per second, while faster horses are those which go 15.5-16.5 meters per second. Both the slower and faster horses kept getting faster as moisture content increased to a certain level, at which point the speed of the faster horses levelled off and the speed of the slower horses got worse. While the researchers\' definitions of \"fast\" vs. \"slow\" are different than what most handicappers would have used, there does not seem to be any obvious reason that the basic principle would not apply at faster speeds. In other words, it is at least reasonable to think that in making a variant, there are times when differentiating between fast and slow horses may be every bit as important as drawing a distinction between one and two turn races.
Mall:
I also believe that there is no accurate way to measure the moisture content of the track which makes this area a guesstimate. Theoritically, you should be able to measure the moisture level in the track just as easiliy as you would the humidity in the air but this cannot be done just yet. Maybe we can have a 1 cubic yard area of the exact composition of the track and keep it where it is expose to the elements and add water as it is being added to the track and take a measurement every 30 min.
Now, according to your model here then a deal rail at Belmont means there is much less moisture on the rail when the track is label fast and this causes the horses to dig deeper into the track and thus slow down. I think we can prove this by getting measurement at every 1/16 of a mile before every race along 5 race path. The next question is exactly how did these reputable scientist measure moisture content?
Also, keep in mind that this does not even start to address turf racing which is an animal of a different breed.
PS
are you in for WED?
Mall-- Very interesting stuff. Can you e-mail me the article, or set up a link?
OPM-- Actually, there is a way to measure moisture content, and track superintendent Jerry Porcelli is doing it at NYRA tracks. See my post of 2/25 this year here, \"The Two Sides Of The House I Can See Are White\". They also do depth charts around the track, but the differences are very slight (hence the measurments subject to error), and as far as I know the results are not published anywhere.
The Euros have a method of measuring the firmness of the turf. I\'m not sure what it is but I think it has something to do with a device that measures resistance when jabbed into the ground.
Why are the results not published not just for NYRA but for every track. Also, what Mall was getting at (I think) is that according to him the variant will also depend on the horses running over the track. Do you find this to be a true statement?
I haven\'t studied it. After I read the article I\'ll comment further.
OPM rightly points out that my comments only relate to dirt tracks, but I assume he is referring to the difficulty a handicapper would have measuring moisture content. As I understand it, these reasearchers collected 10 samples, weighed them, dried them in an oven at 100 degrees C, and then reweighed them to determine moisture content. Though it would have cost quite a bit more, they could have measured moisture content and quite a few other things if they had used a device invented more than 20 yrs ago by the M.I.T. Engineer who was instrumental in the design and construction of Tapeta, the only training track I know of which will pay for the surgery if a horse in training experiences a chip, fracture, or quarter crack. OPM is also correct that the basic point has to do with how moisture content(perhaps because it is the only thing they looked at) appears to have a different impact depending on how fast a horse runs. For safety purposes, it might make sense to run the races for slower horses with the moisture content at one level, and the races for faster horses with the moisture content at another level. The link to research paper is: http://www.neosoft.com/~iaep/pages/protected/jissues/j1701/1701_3.html
As you read it, imagine the energy returned by the track in terms of a series of springs, and tell me if logically a larger surface area would result in more rebound, assuming a cushion which contains the right level of moisture for a horse that speed.
Mall,
There is no doubt that the \"impact resistance\" of the track will vary with the speed and force at which the horses hit the surface. The question is by how much.
For those who play golf it is very much like trying to match or \"tune\" a golf ball or golf club to a golfers swing. If you swing very fast you want a very stiff shaft on your club and a hard golf ball that will react to the impact more quickly. If you have a slow swing you want just the opposite. The more closely you match the frequency of the swing with the frequency of the shaft/ball the more efficient the impact and the greater the distance and the better the \"feel.\"
The same works for the track surface. The closer it is tuned to the frequency of the impact of the hoof on the ground the more efficient the energy exchange and the faster the horse will go. Interestingly enough, I would imagine that if you could exactly tune the surface to the frequency of the horse\'s hoof \"beat\" you would not only have the fastest surface but also the safest since the impact would be in \"sync\" with the horses hoof and would minimize the stress at impact.
I will stop rambling but, based on this article, it does seem that the difference is significant enough that it might result in a slightly different variant for a fast horse (say a stakes sprinter) than for a slow horse (say cheap maiden claimers going 2 turns) even over exactly the same surface.
Interesting stuff.
Chris
I think \"small or slight\" is very big since the difference between two horse separated by one length in a 6f race is only 0.2%(if the race was run in 1:10 and 1:10.1.)so if you can get a surface where horses are gaining only 0.1%edge, then this is very significant.
The young engineer who agreed to review the research paper for me (pending an assignment designing satellites in outer space) warned against extrapolating data such as this, but did describe as \"ridiculous\" the edge one would obtain if: (a)what I\'ll call the \"cushion effect\" also applies to different track compositions & could be quantified; (b)a simple spreadsheet was prepared showing the times fast & slow horses ran, adjusted to reflect the cushion effect; & (c) one knew the cushion effect of the track in question prior to the race. But I digress.
Since nobody took the bait, the last sentence of my 2nd post was intended to raise the question of whether this isn\'t also an explanation of why some handicappers seem to be able to pretty accurately determine in advance if a horse has the kind of foot which will or will not be able to handle certain types of off tracks. Presumably, under the right conditions, a larger foot surface area results in more return of energy, which means less vertical force is necessary, which means the horse runs faster. Makes sense, or does it?
Mall,
It has long been a belief in the UK that horses with big feet have an advantage when the ground is really heavy, usually for jump racing during the winter. The theory there is not so much the \'return of energy\' but the fact that the horse\'s hoof doesn\'t sink so far into the turf. I would think that there could be two effects racing on dirt - the return of energy you refer to and the fact that there is less penetration of the surface for horses with bigger feet. Snowshoes work because they keep the wearer on top of the surface rather than letting him get bogged down in it.
Presumably a horse\'s weight would come into it as well so all we need now is to have each horse\'s weight and \'footprint\' in the PPs. Something for the trackmen, Jerry?
Mandown, I\'ll get right on it.
I was glad to hear that Mall\'s guy decided there wasn\'t enough to this to pursue, since my brain revolted just having to read that report, but a couple of thoughts:
1-- All horses run at different speeds at different parts of a race, and they each have different fatigue curves, which would make things even more complicated.
2-- Even if we did have accurate moisture readings, the moisture level varies at different points around the track due to shade from the grandstand, exposure to wind etc.
3-- At a personal level, and as a side issue, the most interesting thing about the study was that they found even slight differences in moisture content had a significant effect on energy returned to the horse (or as Friedman said in his ill-fated attempt to appear scientific, \"resiliency\"). In terms that matter here, slight changes (like 1/2 of 1 per cent) in moisture were found to lead to what we would note as changes in track speed. Those of you who read the post about my discussion with NYRA track superintendent Jerry Porcelli might remember that he said a track labeled fast could have a moisture content of anywhere from 3 to 12 per cent. There are a lot of posts to be found here on this subject (like \"Changing Track Speeds\", 11/17/01), but the short form is that Ragozin\'s claim that only rain storms, freezes, and thaws can affect track speed (made both in his book and by Friedman on their site), is archaic, dogmatic nonsense, the furthest thing from science. We are dealing with a surface that is having water added (or not) at intervals, has its own absorbtive qualities which can be different from those of another track, and is affected by wind, sun, shade, humidity,and groundskeeping. Moisture content and track speed are changing constantly.
Mandown wrote:
\"Presumably a horse\'s weight would come into it as well so all we need now is to have each horse\'s weight and \'footprint\' in the PPs. Something for the trackmen, Jerry?\"
Very interesting what you have to say. I heard Jerry Bailey, when interviewed after the Dixie this year at Pimlico, say that horses who were very light would travel over a very yielding turf course much better than a very heavy horse because they don\'t sink as much into the ground.
Wouldn\'t the same logic apply to speed dirt tracks such as Santa Anita for a speed horse who doesn\'t face as much resistance and therefore can carry his speed further.
Steve Davidowitz spelled this out quite clearly in his book about running on the wet part of the beach as compared to the dry sandy part of the beach. You tire out much more quickly on the dry protion.
Just to throw this in regarding Mandown\'s comments on feet and turf --
I have heard the opposite argument made for horses on dirt tracks - that in heavy or sloppy going, horses with smaller feet have the edge. Horses with big feet slide around in the slop, and horses with smaller feet can get traction and move.
So regarding Silver Charm\'s question
\"Wouldn\'t the same logic apply to speed dirt tracks such as Santa Anita...?\"
maybe not.
HP
JR wrote
\"The Euros have a method of measuring the firmness of the turf. I\'m not sure what it is but I think it has something to do with a device that measures resistance when jabbed into the ground.\"
There is such a device and I have seen it used on television in a profile of a famous trainer that Jerry is acquainted with.
Who is he?
Hint: The acronym for his nickname is
T.W.O.F.H.
HP
I got T (the), O (of), F (Fair), and H (Hill). Can\'t get W... Whacko?
True story some may remember-- Michael made the decision whether to run Da Hoss once by having girlfriend Joan walk the course in high heels. Guess he couldn\'t fit into them himself.
One of the many things we argued about was whether DH could run his race on anything other than a firm course. Michael said he could not, and my pointing out the best race of the horse\'s life to date had come on less than firm turf in the Pennsylvania Gov Cup fell on deaf ears. If it had rained another 15 minutes that day at Woodbine Michael would have taken him out (for real), and I think he only ran him as it was because it was the BC, and the Prestons were there.
Great trainer, tough to deal with.
Spoken like a true owner.