Translating lengths into time

[jman5581]

Originally Posted by Scav

my SIU education is not working properly, if at all

the memories are all that matter

[Scav]

I have been craving Quatros alot lately. $10 for a medium pizza and two Pepsi's, every Sunday during Football season we used to order about 7 of these, a pizza for each person.....I was on a first name basis with the delivery guy, he used to stop in for a pull off the footer

5-4-9-5-3-2-6 Quatros DEEP PAN PIZZA

[jman5581]

I've been making a few Winston bagels myself. They're never as good as the real thing though.

Got a La Bamba anywhere close to you?

[MaTH716]

I have always thought that 3 lengths was a second.

[ateamstupid]

EDIT: Now, thanks to Phil, I use 6-6 1/2 lengths per second. LOL. Obviously it varies depending on how fast the horses are, but that's a good rule of thumb for figuring out internal fractions, and I think if you're not using internal fractions at some point, you're not a real handicapper.

[philcski]

5 lengths/second is a horrifically terrible estimation. Don't use that number unless you absolutely insist on losing your money.

Most people consider a "length" to be 8.5 feet. Using this number, there are 621 lengths in a mile; so a mile run in 1:36 (G3 types at Aqueduct) would be an average speed of 6.47 lengths/second (37.5 mph). That same mile in 1:40 (MCL's at Aqueduct) would be 6.21 lengths/second (36 mph).

Likewise, the supposed 4.5F world record of :48.89 would be 7.15 lengths/second, so the true lengths/second (a VELOCITY calculation) differs based on the time and distance.

[philcski]

By the way... the 5 lengths/second calculation came from trotters, who run a mile in around 2 minutes which is 5.17 lengths/second.

[paisjpq]

I was always told that the 5 lengths was for standardbreds and TB's closer to 6...like Phil said

oops...nevermind, he beat me

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by philcski

5 lengths/second is a horrifically terrible estimation. Don't use that number unless you absolutely insist on losing your money.

Most people consider a "length" to be 8.5 feet. Using this number, there are 621 lengths in a mile; so a mile run in 1:36 (G3 types at Aqueduct) would be an average speed of 6.47 lengths/second (37.5 mph). That same mile in 1:40 (MCL's at Aqueduct) would be 6.21 lengths/second (36 mph).

Likewise, the supposed 4.5F world record of :48.89 would be 7.15 lengths/second, so the true lengths/second (a VELOCITY calculation) differs based on the time and distance.

I actually use .16 seconds per length so I guess I am technically saying 6.25 lengths per second which looks to be a pretty good approximation.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by philcski

5 lengths/second is a horrifically terrible estimation. Don't use that number unless you absolutely insist on losing your money.

Most people consider a "length" to be 8.5 feet. Using this number, there are 621 lengths in a mile; so a mile run in 1:36 (G3 types at Aqueduct) would be an average speed of 6.47 lengths/second (37.5 mph). That same mile in 1:40 (MCL's at Aqueduct) would be 6.21 lengths/second (36 mph).

Likewise, the supposed 4.5F world record of :48.89 would be 7.15 lengths/second, so the true lengths/second (a VELOCITY calculation) differs based on the time and distance.

Good info. You learn something new every day.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I actually use .16 seconds per length so I guess I am technically saying 6.25 lengths per second which looks to be a pretty good approximation.

That's perfect for a one-size-fits-all number, about a 30K claimer's speed (the "average" horse on the track.)

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Good info. You learn something new every day.

Math nerds are good for something I guess!

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by philcski

Math nerds are good for something I guess!

Here's my issue with your logic in coming up with internal fractions: If I'm interpreting it correctly, then that assumes that every horse is running at the winner's speed. Just because the winner is running at a rate of 6.47 lengths/second doesn't mean that a runner in second place making up five lengths will do so at that same rate. He probably is running slower, so that's where it gets tricky, ya' smell me?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Here's my issue with your logic in coming up with internal fractions: If I'm interpreting it correctly, then that assumes that every horse is running at the winner's speed. Just because the winner is running at a rate of 6.47 lengths/second doesn't mean that a runner in second place making up five lengths will do so at that same rate. He probably is running slower, so that's where it gets tricky, ya' smell me?

Yeah, I've thought of that too but can't really think of any accurate way to correct that.

I dont know what is so hard about this. If the horse is running a 24 sec quarter, it's 7 len. per sec. If a 25 sec. quarter it's about 6 1/2 and a 26 sec quarter about 6 len. Going from memory but I think that's right.

If the horse you're trying to measure is moving much faster than the horse with the known time, then you can adjust it. Like the horse with the know time runs a 25 sec quarter, but your horse made up 5 len, then okay assume he is running a bit faster at: 7 lenghts per sec. Difference is only 0.14 vs 0.15 of a sec/length.

Like ateams example. SInce he made up 5 lengths on the 6 1/2 length/sec horse, just assume he's moving 7 lengths per sec. He made up 5 lengths, multiply by 0.14 and therefore he ran 0.7 sec. faster.

Possible error of .05 sec. doing it the other way? How accurate can you get?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Here's my issue with your logic in coming up with internal fractions: If I'm interpreting it correctly, then that assumes that every horse is running at the winner's speed. Just because the winner is running at a rate of 6.47 lengths/second doesn't mean that a runner in second place making up five lengths will do so at that same rate. He probably is running slower, so that's where it gets tricky, ya' smell me?

Correct, but not enough to make enough of a difference. Let's say you have a sprint where they went :45 to the half and we looked at 3 horses:
* The leader ran 6.90 lengths/second to that point
* the horse in 2nd by 5 lengths ran 6.78 lengths/second to that point
* the horse in 8th by 12 lengths ran 6.63 lengths/second to that point

So using that information, a fair "one-size-fits-all" lengths beaten adjustment for the pace call would be 6.75 lengths/second.