Nice editorial

Indian Charlie · #1 10-20-2010, 10:11 AM

http://drf.com/news/synthetic-experi...-similar-fates

Riot · #2 10-20-2010, 10:20 AM

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.

MaTH716 · #3 10-20-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

Riot · #4 10-20-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

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.

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.

MaTH716 · #5 10-20-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I think California turned out to be more "extreme" than Turfway, weather- and use-wise.

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.

Riot · #6 10-20-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

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.

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.

hockey2315 · #7 10-20-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

Toootally the same thing.

blackthroatedwind · #8 10-20-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Toootally the same thing.

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

Indian Charlie · #9 10-20-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

Riot · #10 10-20-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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

Slow day at work?

Riot · #11 10-20-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Toootally the same thing.

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.

hockey2315 · #12 10-20-2010, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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.

Riot · #13 10-20-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

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.

Indian Charlie · #14 10-20-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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?

Antitrust32 · #15 10-20-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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???

Riot · #16 10-20-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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?

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.