Nice editorial
 

I still can't understand why some are so rabidly against the development and use of synthetic surfaces. The "dirt" used in tracks is certainly a very specialized, manufactured composition, and most obviously varies from track to track, and quite markedly in many instances. Other countries still successfully use synthetic surfaces in horse racing. The WEG World Championships were just successfully held on dressage and jumping arenas (and practice areas) of synthetic surface.

We'll see how long it takes the dirt track at SA to be deemed "well broken in" and optimal. The interesting part in this transition is the reveal - use of the base.

I don't think people are against the development of these surfaces (especially in areas where weather coule be an extreme issue, ie Turfway park). But when they are forced fed to people with very little or no trial data as in the case with California, is where the problem lies. All of a sudden you had every track on a major circuit changed for no reason because a few people thought it was better. Then throw into the mix the probelms (especially Santa Anita) that the tracks had with their new surfaces.

Toootally the same thing.

Have you read the tons of posts explaining why people don't like it, or do you just react to them without trying to see things from the other side?

you had to ask this???

Speak for yourself. I blew a brutal photo in the Dressage event.

I can't wait to hear TFF's analysis on how the rider blew it.

I think California turned out to be more "extreme" than Turfway, weather- and use-wise. And you most obviously can't lump the performance of the different surfaces together, even in CA.

The point is that synthetic surfaces can and are being developed and used at elite levels, and have been for some time. Nobody (I hope) thinks the technical requirements of the surfaces for different disciplines are the same.

:zz: Other side? You mean the side of "not all synthetics are the devil?"

Yeah, I have read the tons of posts. Plus alot of the scientific data. Hence my post why I still can't understand the blanket hate by some.

Did I miss it and California had some kind of deep freeze where it's been under 30 degrees within the last 4 years? Otherwise, rain doesn't count in my book as extreme.

Slow day at work? :rolleyes:

You missed or forgot about all that about the humidity, temperature changes (heat, large degree to temp variation), etc. compared to previous installations of the product (ProRide) in the east? Why they changed the composition to try and get it right? Okay.

Your attempt at a point is completely undermined by your second sentence. The requirements of a surface for racing are so incredibly different from a dressage competition (omg lol) that to compare the two is absolutely insane. Pwetty howsies pwancing awound and horses racing with millions of dollars in wagers on the line have nothing to do with each other.

Your attempt at sarcasm regarding "pwetty howsies", and the attempt to join the physics of surface composition with gambling just proves my point.

The "physics of surface composition" (maybe a bit of chemistry too) and gambling are directly connected when the first affects the second.

Of course gambling is affected by gambler's ability to predict results on the (any) surface.

That has nothing to do with my post, however.

I think you answered your own question. These surfaces were basically jammed down everyone's throat, without any kind of credible basis. Then they have trouble with the surfaces (at some tracks) because of rain (and according to you they also had to be tweaked due to heat and humidity). It's been said here a million times, you would think that "all weather track", would mean that the track could handle all weather. And you still don't understand why many in the community haven't embraced synthetic surfaces?
Not to mention the affect that it has on handicapping. While some people like it, it seems like the majority of people would rather just have a conventional dirt track.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider humidity and tempature changes above 50 degrees as extreme. I personally feel like these tracks are good idea in areas that expierence extreme cold conditions, but in California where it seems to be fast and firm most of the time I just don't see any need or reason for them.

I wish some tracks would install artificial turf courses.