0 for 39 and still trying

[msola1]

SoCalMan,

Take a track diagram, any one, and remove the straightaways. Put the remaining two pieces together and you will have a circle. The circumferenceof the circle is 2*pi*r, where r is the radius and pi is about 3.1416.

If you move out from the rail an amount x, then the circumference of the new circle will be 2*pi*(r+x). Since you have increased the radius by an amount x, the new radius is r + x [multiplying this out it becomes 2*pi*r + 2*pi*x].

The difference between the two circumferences will then be

outer circle.........inner circle  
(2*pi*r + 2*pi*x) - 2*pi*r = 2*pi*x.

So the extra amount a horse runs x feet further out from the rail is independent of the radius of the track. On a one-turn race, the amount will be

(1/2)*2*pi*x = pi*x.

I hope this helps.

Mike
PS: Are you not still pretty far east of us?

[davidrex]

misola,

What if the turns aren\'t identical in width...say belmont compared to pimlico?
seems to me ,turns vary at tracks just like a stretch run to the wire.

[msola1]

David,

Look at my post gain. I used r, any radius, that is, the turn of any \"width,\" and x, any distance out. As long as the track turns are semicircles, which they are, the actual \"width of turn,\" by which I assume you mean tighter vs. wider turn, is not a factor in the measurement. That is not to say it will not have an effect on horses trying to negotiate it, but that is not the question.

Regards,

Mike

[TGJB]

Correct.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Very nice math. Very precise. I know what Pi is, but I\'ve never attempted to solve the equation.

All things being equal it is a very useful equation. But are things always equal? Are things ever equal?

Was the base and cushion laid down equally all along the track? Was it equally laid down around the entire circumference as well as equally distributed along the width of the course?

Is the Base and Cushion maintained uniformly by the heavy equipment that travels over the surface to condition it? You say the base can\'t change from the way its originally laid down? Really? What about drainage and erosion? How much does a John Deere weigh compared to a horse? Does the base of the surface bear equally the weight of the heavy equipment? Are all areas of the track compacted equally by machine and horse?

Can the Cushion be altered by wind? By wind and rain? By wind, rain and sunlight? Can those elemental forces extert their influence more upon one part of the earthen track than another? Can certain parts of the surface dry faster than other parts? Or can certain areas hold moisture better than other parts?

Pi is a very precise formula. Its very comforting isn\'t it?

msola1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoCalMan,
>
> Take a track diagram, any one, and remove the
> straightaways. Put the remaining two pieces
> together and you will have a circle. The
> circumferenceof the circle is 2*pi*r, where r is
> the radius and pi is about 3.1416.
>
> If you move out from the rail an amount x, then
> the circumference of the new circle will be
> 2*pi*(r+x). Since you have increased the radius by
> an amount x, the new radius is r + x .
>
> The difference between the two circumferences will
> then be
>
> outer circle.........inner circle  
> (2*pi*r + 2*pi*x) - 2*pi*r = 2*pi*x.
>
> So the extra amount a horse runs x feet further
> out from the rail is independent of the radius of
> the track. On a one-turn race, the amount will be
>
> (1/2)*2*pi*x = pi*x.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Mike
> PS: Are you not still pretty far east of us?

[msola1]

Stick to the issue: the distance a horse runs by being further out. Unless the track were laid out in hills and valleys along the rail, nothing you said has anything to do with the question.

[SoCalMan2]

Dear Mike,

Thanks for the education, and, yes, I am still 8 time zones east of Varick Street -- dunno when they will let me out of this gulag.  

In terms of my question, think I was confusing two things.  While going three feet wider than your competitor on a circle will always result in running the same qauntum of extra distance regardless of the circumference of the circle (as you have well educated me), the CONSEQUENCES of that extra distance are only meaningful in the context of how long the race in question is.  

To use the example of round-the-world races at the poles versus at the equator,  if a race is only 6 feet long and you have to go 18 feet longer because you were three feet wide, the disadvantage is insurmountable. However, if the race is a 100 million feet long, that extra 18 feet that results from going three feet wide is not going to amount to very much.  

I am guessing that the differing impact is the reason that a point on the scale is not always worth the same distance and that it varies by the distance of a race.  

Anwyay, even if I am still getting it wrong, I think I still understand better.

Thanks,

SCM2

[marcus]

very intersting - how does the degree of the banking of a turn figure in terms of mathematic\'s  as part of the ground loss equation    . also ,  a side issue in regard to a horses energy dispersion - on wide turns ( such as at Bel ) a  horse is able to extend in stride more fully . on a theoretical basis , how is the  degree of banking of a turn or the energy dispertion level issue on the wider turns addressed or expressed in the mathematical equation  ...

[miff]

Mark,

You have also come close to revealing something I have long felt. When they are virtually \"walking\" around the first turn( e.g.Slow early pace grass races races, Bluegrass)I doubt that ground loss is of equal importance as when they are runnning full bore off the second turn.

Re the first turn, I\'m not saying the outside horse is not travelling more distance but what real energy are they spending when all the jocks are completely snugged up.


Mike

[BitPlayer]

Mike -

Your post and that of SCM2 both touch on an issue that I first read about in a post on this board two or three years ago.  The argument is that, either because horses are pack animals or because jocks want to maintain position, horses who are going wide generally don\'t drop back by a distance equal to their ground loss.  Rather the horses tend to maintain their position relative to each other, which means the outside horses are running slightly faster to stay even.

On the sweeping turns at Belmont, since the same amount of ground loss is spread out over a longer distance, the difference in velocity required to stay even is smaller than on the inner dirt at Aqueduct.  Hence the reduced disadvantage of being wide at Belmont.

With respect to the first turn versus the second turn, since the horses are running closer to full-out on the second turn, the physical effects of the same difference in velocity are greater than when they are coasting through the first turn.

I\'m not sure how significant any of this is, but I thought it was interesting when I first read it, and it seems relevant to the current thread.

[marcus]

mike - your exactly right imo . these might be some of those difficult to quantify or intangible factors whose best value is perhaps in the eye of the estute and experienced handicapper as yourself and the other many  on the board  .

during the recent bc at lone star , i noticed for instance that horses in relatively tight quarters down low were altering their stride to a degree to accomendate the very tight turns when coming out of the turn where it meets the straight away - it looked to me as about as close to a 45 degree angle as one can get in a semi-circle  ...

of course it always helps one know in advance that a horse has the numerical ability to cover ground loss or not , though as i\'ve been learning on this board and through my own experiences , that many other pertinent issues   - like energy dispersal , breeding , attending vet or what exactly is in a given horses tank or heart - seem relative in an abstract or intangible sense .

mark n.

[miff]

Bit,

The methodology looks at the whole number and does not compensate for a very slow run around the first turn only. If a horse is 3w and they are crawling, it does not matter in the formula but it may in reality.I personally feel that energy spent is more relevant than ground alone and horses running very slow are not spending much energy, if any at all.

The purist look at ground loss only and have no regard for the pedestrian early run around the first turn.I can\'t see how it could be dealt with any other way, formula wise.If the whole pace is very slow then of course we get the slow pace designation.

Mike

[SoCalMan2]

Somebody should go back and look at the KY Derby in Point Given\'s year.  On the first turn in that race, they were winging it and there were horses 5 wide.  If the first half was in 45 flat and somebody was on that pace but 5 lengths wide, it is almost like they did the first half in 44.  One of the problems I have with looking at fractions is that there is so much that goes into what happened that is not reflected.  Run ups is the most obvious issue, but weight and ground loss are not reflected in fractions and can have an even bigger impact than they do on final time.

[fkach]

On the flip side, when they do run hard on the first turn (usually speed horses), those that are wide are getting a horrible trip because they are running even faster fractions than it looks because of the ground loss.