It's about time to consider reforming the way our races are timed

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by outofthebox

Is there a longer run up than that of CD 6f start?

It's one of the longest for sure!

Trinniberg and Secret Circle hooked up through a 20 4/5 opening quarter there in the BC Juvie Sprint. They have like 200ft of run-up sometimes at that distance.

Here are the fractions for Black Caviar in a six furlong race over in Australia:

Black Caviar: 13.75, 10.65, 10.30, 10.27, 10.65, 11.75 Final time of 1:07.36

The first quarter was just 24.40 seconds, obviously because they time races from a dead stand-still start and not because 'paces are slow over there'

Obviously, the reason why you have horses running furlongs in 9 3/5 seconds at 2yo sales is because they get huge run-up and they've accelerated to max speed by the time they hit the pole that starts timing.

Still, I would say the difference between a stand-still start and 10ft of run-up is probably a lot greater than 50ft of run-up vs 120ft.

If we started timing races the sensible and logical way in this country ... you would see half the grandstand befuddled by the fractions.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

It's one of the longest for sure!

Trinniberg and Secret Circle hooked up through a 20 4/5 opening quarter there in the BC Juvie Sprint. They have like 200ft of run-up sometimes at that distance.

Here are the fractions for Black Caviar in a six furlong race over in Australia:

Black Caviar: 13.75, 10.65, 10.30, 10.27, 10.65, 11.75 Final time of 1:07.36

The first quarter was just 24.40 seconds, obviously because they time races from a dead stand-still start and not because 'paces are slow over there'

Obviously, the reason why you have horses running furlongs in 9 3/5 seconds at 2yo sales is because they get huge run-up and they've accelerated to max speed by the time they hit the pole that starts timing.

Still, I would say the difference between a stand-still start and 10ft of run-up is probably a lot greater than 50ft of run-up vs 120ft.

If we started timing races the sensible and logical way in this country ... you would see half the grandstand befuddled by the fractions.

You should get Charles Carrol's Handicapping Speed. It is great when it comes to talking about how long it takes horses to get up to speed, how long they can hold it, etc.

[Sightseek]

This thread is really, really awesome guys!

[PatCummings]

I absolutely couldn't agree more with your CJ and Doug here. On the surface, it would seem easy to agree how to use a clock to time a race, but it's not.

When I was in Dubai, about five different people came up to me and asked if I thought Varsity had a legitimate chance. "Pat, did you see those times, 54 seconds, that's serious!"

Then commenced a discussion about how the US times races...

For the record - in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, some others, an electric pulse is tied between the starter's mechanism and the timing systems - when the button is depressed, the pulse triggers the start of the timing - essentially, when the gate opens, the clock begins, and you get true distance timings.

What you also said about 6F CD races is also correct - realistically, those races are roughly 6 1/3 furlongs from the pure starting gate location to the wire, with a run-up around 200 feet.

[Cannon Shell]

Are quarter horse races timed from the gate?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Are quarter horse races timed from the gate?

To the best of my knowledge, and from doing a little bit of Google work, the answer is yes.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Are quarter horse races timed from the gate?

Yes, definitely.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

This thread is really, really awesome guys!

I was reading this earlier and have to agree.

Great stuff. Very informative.

[ninetoone]

Is there a way we can use this to upgrade or downgrade the derby prep races this year based on this information & the run up at the different prep tracks?

[Michael Wrona]

Given that every race at every track on every surface is run at an approximate distance, it is particularly ludicrous that some turf races are actually labeled an "about distance!" I have always declined to announce or reference it, as my respect is too great for the intelligence of ... well, at least this handful of contributors.

I can assure you the majority of the racing world takes U.S. "world records" with the proverbial grain of salt.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Michael Wrona

I can assure you the majority of the racing world takes U.S. "world records" with the proverbial grain of salt.

As they should!

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Is there a way we can use this to upgrade or downgrade the derby prep races this year based on this information & the run up at the different prep tracks?

Sure you could, but it would be a lot of work. Think of it this way, the timer starts when the first horse hits the beam. The race is 9f. The winner is already 5 lengths behind at that time. So, he basically ran 9f and 5 lengths in the final time, not 9f. Or, you could deduct the time it took him to get to the wire from his time.

However, not sure that is really a good answer either. What if the horse is just notoriously slow? If the run up today is 20 feet, he won't be five lengths behind. If it is 120, he might be more. The whole things is just screwy. Just time the races so all horses are timed for the same exact distance. It shouldn't be this hard.

[hi_im_god]

it's impossible to disagree with the basic premise that a uniform standard for timing races would be a good thing. but i'm not sure this is the worst thing ever from a handicapping viewpoint.

it's more difficult to make a good figure if you aren't on the gate crew. but unless you're seriously overvaluing the first split how much does this actually matter?

if the first fraction is an unreliable variable would it be a bad thing to just ignore it and substitute lengths ahead/behind?