Beyer Not Impressed

[jbelfior]

Jerry:
I\'m assuming that you consider that all turns are not created equal (e.g. Saratoga and Aqueduct vs Belmont) with respect to ground loss.

Good Luck,
Joe B.

[TGJB]

All turns are the same re ground loss, it\'s basic geometry. Pi times radius. If you are out one path, the additional ground you lose is pi times the width of the path.

[ringato3]

TGJB,

Understand the geometry.   But all turns not created equal from an energy spent negotiating the turn.   Not suggesting or asking this be factored into the figure, but the reality is that ground loss while negotiating s sharper turn is likely or even surely to use more of a horses energy, than ground loss while negotiating a wider turn.

This same concept is something I have talked about in other posts, when I said \"comfortable ground loss\" vs \"standard ground loss\".   Ground loss for a horse into the first turn, stalking a cheap speed horse at a moderate pace, is going to sap much less of a horses energy than a horse trying to accelerate wide around horses turning for home, when a race is heating up and horses a re trying to make their move.

The math and figure effect will be the same, but the energy spent is different.  IMO.   And why I think some ground less has to measured through the filter of how the ground was lost, at least by the handicapper, not the figure maker

Rob

[TGJB]

Not that I particularly care, but you do understand those were a bunch of unsupported assertions, right? When I gave you an answer, I gave math to back it up.

If you have data or science to back up your theory, provide it.

[jbelfior]

Jerry:
I agree with Rob\'s theory that it takes less energy to negotiate a wider turn. That\'s not just me talking.Some of the people that ride them would agree.IMO, that move by VE Day at Aqueduct gets him a nice try, not a near miss.
 
That being said, I don\'t have the physics, math, or data to dispute your answer.I\'ll leave that to anyone on this board who either has that data (if it even exists) or is a lot smarter than me and can explain the science behind it.

Good Luck,
Joe B.

[miff]

Joe B,

You don\'t science to confirm that all things slow in a horse race are not equal to all things fast, and should be weighed accordingly in any formula/methodology.

A horse travelling 3 wide path on the first turn in 11.5 seconds is far more disadvantaged than a horse travelling the same 3 wide path in 13.5 seconds,yet they receive the same adjustment.


Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- evidence, please. And I don\'t mean anecdotal. Otherwise it\'s just an assertion.

[miff]

Nice Try, would you like to bet on my assertion from charts, your own data base?

[dlf]

TGJB,
Here is something Richie posted last year. Seems to indicate that not all turns are equal.
https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,88662,88662#msg-88662

Quiet Time on the Board, Some Light Reading (605 Views)
Posted by: richiebee (IP Logged)
Date: June 30, 2014 12:41PM

THERE WILL BE A QUIZ ON THIS AT THE T-GENERATE SEMINAR ON SATURDAY JULY 26

Dynamics of Turns in Horse Racing by Larry Wellman

This work was conducted in the mid to late 1990's.

Turn Dynamics:

A couple of weeks ago I posted an article relative to turns which had a mistake that I have now corrected. The post was in response to a question I received from Dr. Steve Roman relative to his observation that some horses out in the 3 and 4 path on the turn appear not to be handicapped by the extra distance traveled and actual look like they are handling the turns better then the horse on the rail. At that time I developed a spreadsheet to test his question. In the spreadsheet I allowed horses in the outer paths to increase speed to match the turn dynamics (forces) that the rail horse was experiencing. What the results showed was that the horses off the rail could run at a higher speed on the turn versus the rail horse. This extra speed increase would compensate for the extra ground covered. The net result was that the horse in the outer path actually only lost half what is the accepted standard. The standard is lose one length or 10-11 ft for each path removed from the rail.

Using my Energy Program I went in and tested some additional factors to show that a horse in the four path actually can run 6 furlongs faster then the rail horse when track and conformation parameters are match properly. The track I modeled is Laurel Park, which is a 9f track with 2.25f turns. I modeled a track with no track bias (resistance) around or across the paths. I did change two parameters that impact on turn dynamics. I modeled the proper conditions for a horse further from the rail so the extra distance does not handicap a horse. The two factors I adjusted are the bank angle of the turn and a factor called (beta) that represents the ankle pulley ratio as defined by Peter R. Greene (J. Biomech Vol 20, No7 pp667-680 1987). The ankle pulley ratio is a conformation parameter and represents the distance from the sole of the foot or hoof up to the ankle or fetlock on the horse. I used the number suggested by Greene since there is no publish info on horses. If the foot is allowed to roll into the turn the beta value will be reduced. So what I did was assume that the turn bank angle starts at zero in the one path and is 3.5 degrees in the 4th path. I
made the following assumption that the ankle pulley ratio is the maximum at the rail and reduced to zero in the four path. Below I will show the results of my program for both the path one and path four under the conditions I mention above. Path zero is if a horse ran on top of the rail while path one is the path a horse runs when on the rail. I modeled a 3.5 ft distance between paths. Each path away from the rail results in an extra 11 ft (3.5 X pi) traveled. I also show the time for a 6f race on a straight course having no turns.

Bank |------turn------|
Path Angle Beta 1/4 3/8 1/2 5/8 3/4
0 3.5 .27 24.55 36.15 48.35 60.85 73.50
1 3.5 .27 24.55 36.25 48.50 61.05 73.70
1 0.0 .27 24.55 36.25 48.60 61.20 73.90
4 3.5 .27 24.55 36.45 48.95 61.65 74.30
4 3.5 .00 24.55 36.35 48.75 61.25 73.85
Straight course 24.55 36.05 48.00 60.25 72.85

Simulation run with a .05 sec delta

Now when you compare the 1 path with 0.0 degrees bank against the 4 path with 3.5 degrees banking and zero ankle pulley ratio (beta=0) we see that the horse in the 4 path runs about same race time for 6f race although this horse runs 33 ft longer distance (on turn) then the one horse.

What this means is that correcting a horse speed figures using a standard of one length lost per each path away could actually over estimate the horse speed figures. To do a proper adjustment we would need to know the bank angle distribution across the turn, conformation of each individual horse, (how this horse handles turns), a track bias if it exist across the track. The beta term is also dependent on the type of shoes the horse is wearing, etc.

I think this address Dr. Roman\'s question along with some possible errors that could exist in some of the speed figure services that make adjustments for ground lost on the turn.

I did not limited the turn forces on a horse like I did in the spreadsheet I mention earlier. Adding this factor in could lead to even better performance when running away from the rail.

For handicapping you need to assess each horses ability to run on the turns.

Follow up question.

Jetaway brought up a question relative to the bank angle I assumed for the horse in the one path. I made the assumption to show the maximum based on the two conditions discussed. If you go back and look at the table you will see that even if the bank angle is assumed to be 3.5 degrees for both horses the horse in the four path will only run slower by less then one length (.15 sec) if this horse can handle the turn better (beta=0). Beta as I mention is a function of conformation. The equation I used with this term also involves the following terms: the bank angle, the heel over angle, and Froude number. Froude number is a non-dimensional speed parameter using the turn radius. Heel over angle is the arctan of the Froude number. The difference between bank angle and heel over angle is called the mismatch angle. If we assume a horse can run with zero mismatch in the turn the bank angle matches the heel over angle then we have the condition I show as beta=0 for the horse in the four path.

From the table we see that if the conditions were the same for both horses then the horse in the four path runs an extra 33 ft and it takes him and .60 sec more time to cover 6f about one length per fifth of a second. Now under conditions when the horse in the four path has the ideal conditions then he cover the extra distance in only .15 seconds (bank=3.5 deg) compared to the one path. Resulting in a difference of two lengths. This correction would be equal to about 5 Beyer speed points if they corrected for trip. In the Sheets or Thorograph system this would equal a point or two. I\'m not a Sheet
user so I\'m not sure on the exact number. The point is that any service that corrects for trip on the turns is adding some additional noise in there product. How do they know what the conformation (beta terms factor), the banking or track bias across the turn and around the turn. The beta term is determined from observations and varies within a population. Based on this new research I would look closely at figures that are adjusted for very wide trips. Maybe some of the sheet users can offer some observations about figures that look out of line when the horses raced wide. I personally never adjusted my speed figures in the 80\'s for trip. Add factors like wind and bad weather and we are really shooting in the dark.

BTW, all races are for zero gate runup.

Turns and Breakdowns.

Because of all the discussion about the breakdowns in the Jim Beam I decided to present some information about turn dynamics and the relationship to potential breakdowns. I did not see the Jim Beam so I do not know where on the track the horses breakdown, however the turn or the transition from the turn to the straight would be critical areas. I will present a factor which is a combination of two other variable that I model in my Energy Program. The first variable is related to bank angle and the lean angle of the horse in the turn. Included in this term is the ankle pulley ratio which relates internal and external moment arms within the ankle. Research conducted by Peter Greene (J. Biomechanics, Vol 20 No.7, 1987) estimated values in the .27 range for humans and the same value to be used for dogs and horses. The ankle pulley ratio is a conformation variable of the distal end of the leg: i.e. length of the pastern and the distance between the sesamoids bones. Shoe designs variables also play a part.
Since there is no research data on horses I will use Peter Greene number. The second term is related to turn radius and speed on the turn. Together the two terms can be treated
as an equivalent increase in weight carried on the turn. The values shown in the following table is the combined term. Any number greater then one results in higher weight carried. I will show two different turn radius: 2f and 2.25f turns. I have not
modeled tighter turns (1.5f) or larger turns (3f).

The data shown is for the horse a half-furlong into the turn around 2.5f to 3f into the race.

Turn Size: 2f or 420 ft radius.
Bank Angle, degrees
Beta 0 3.5 7.0
0 1.027 1.027 1.027
.27 1.0855 1.0711 1.055
.54 1.1428 1.1120 1.080

Turn Size:2.25f or 472 ft radius
Bank Angle, degrees
Beta 0 3.5 7.0
0 1.025 1.025 1.025
.27 1.0834 1.0670 1.051
.54 1.1390 1.1090 1.076

The bank angle of 3.5 degrees represents a grade of 6 percent across the track.
This would be a rise of 6 ft over a 100 ft. I used this number based on some private communications about track designs.

**It would be very helpful to have this information
presented in the DRF.

If a track has no bank on the turn and we used Greens\'s number for beta (.27) the horse will be carry the equivalent of an additional 100 pounds on the turn. Bank the turn to 3.5 degress and we get only additional 80 pound based on a horse and rider of 1200 pounds. Based on gait analysis a individual fore legs will be subjected to almost three times the full body weight of the horse during a stride. Now add the impact of the turns dynamics and the horse would see an a additional 300 pounds of load on one leg. Increase speed or reduce turn radius will result in higher numbers.

This is only part of the answer about breakdowns. Other variables such as shoeing, bandages, conformation, track, and the riders all come into play.

[ringato3]

TGJB

I am surprised u would disagree with what I wrote, if u are in fact doing so.

Every calculation for energy involve speed/velocity.   Energy spent wide trsckimgs a soft pace will be lower than energy spent accelerating wide at a quicker pace.   Yet the geometry ground loss will be the same.

I am sure your business is doing just fine without my opinion, but as I have sat in betting parlors and had some of the few \"younger people\" that actually bet on horses approach me and ask me about your product and sheets in general and why I use them, the standard reasons I get for many of that generation thinking it is voodoo (and many use the word) are:

1.   Pace is not part of the figure in any way and everybody who has ever played the game can say the rhyme \"pace makes the race\"

2.   How can a couple pounds matter to a 1200 pound animal, it is minuscule relative to their size.

3.   Anything that doesn\'t factor \"trip\" and how a figure was earned is short sighted.  

The database u and the other guy have probably answers point 2.

But points 1 and 3 are tougher to address.  

And if u really think all ground loss is equal from an energy spent perspective, than that would be just be wrong.   I didn\'t post the formula, but I am pretty sure anybody can google an energy calculation and see speed/velocity is part of it.

Done with my posts per day limit, so dropping this.

Rob

[TGJB]

No, I would like to see it. Go ahead. I\'m open to anything that can be proven, or even suggested by circumstantial evidence. Just not anecdotal.

[TGJB]

To the degree I followed that on a quick skimming, and I could be wrong:

1-- He\'s assuming, not measuring, banking angles differing.

2-- He\'s predicting how fast they could run (based on assumptions), not measuring how fast they did run.

[TGJB]

Energy spent tracking a soft pace as opposed to a hot one will be less both for horses saving ground and losing it. And the ones losing it will travel further and spend more than the ones saving ground.

We measure the things that can be measured, and we say what they are. Re pace, everyone is free to adjust for as much of that as they want. Pretty sure Miff and I don\'t use our data the same way in that regard.

I discussed the weight issue in a recent post, if someone can find that you\'ll have the answer to those guys at OTB.

For adjusting for \"trip\", see adjusting for pace.

What we are measuring is in effect final time for each horse, normalized for weight carried, track speed, distance of race, and distance travelled. You are free to decide how the time was earned.

[richiebee]

dlf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB,
> Here is something Richie posted last year. Seems
> to indicate that not all turns are equal.
> https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,88662
> ,88662#msg-88662
>
> Quiet Time on the Board, Some Light Reading (605
> Views)
> Posted by: richiebee (IP Logged)
> Date: June 30, 2014 12:41PM
>
> THERE WILL BE A QUIZ ON THIS AT THE T-GENERATE
> SEMINAR ON SATURDAY JULY 26
>
> Dynamics of Turns in Horse Racing by Larry Wellman
>
>
> This work was conducted in the mid to late 1990's.


DLF--

You got me in trouble now -- JB likely to revoke my free lifetime admission to
TG Saratoga seminars.

If you read the whole string, you will see that (a) I posted this specifically
to smoke JB out, to get a reaction out of him, because he went missing from
the TG board for a couple of weeks; (b) I added another post to the string
questioning some of the assumptions made in this UNPUBLISHED article; and (c)
I think \"The Good Girl\" is Jennifer Aniston\'s best movie.

I do not understand why the figure making methodology comes under so much
question; I have learned to make my own adjustments when necessary, ie how to
reconcile wide trips and dead rails. When I go to DeFontes for a meatball
hero, I know it will be good and it is not necessary for me to know the
contents of the meatballs or the manner in which they were cooked.

[dlf]

The angle of banking can be found online for most tracks. A quick Google search just directed me to a NYRA Saratoga fact sheet from 2013 that said the turns on the main track are banked at 4%. Twinspires has some of this type of info, as well.