- This topic has 106 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Does anyone know what the makeup of the surface is like at Ascot?
If you think about running on sand, it becomes all the easier when the surface is extremely wet. The sand is compressed and provides a firmer, more stable platform, but the ‘kickback’ we associate with soft and heavy turf is still prevalent. The same can be said of some dirt tracks in the US, where the very top of the track is seemingly loose but underneath it is sufficiently compact to provide quick racing conditions.
Could the same (I can’t really claim to be any sort of expert on soil, though I can’t say as I’d want to be able to
) possible be true of Ascot, either in parts or all over?Sand within a soil structure makes it unstable unless it is rolled as the reason it is so porous is the gaps between the grains.
Rolled sand gives a firm surface hence the fact that ‘sealed’ AW tracks ride faster in the wet whereas those left open and harrowed will ride slower when it is wet as they have to work the track deeper to disperse the water.
If, as has been reported, the ground was moving underfoot, should they have raced at Ascot on Saturday?
Wouldn’t that sort of ground be described as false and, as such, dangerous?
Colin
- Total Posts 17716
Rolled sand gives a firm surface hence the fact that ‘sealed’ AW tracks ride faster in the wet whereas those left open and harrowed will ride slower when it is wet as they have to work the track deeper to disperse the water.
I’m not having a go Richard, and I supect it has little to do with the ground at Ascot but, in the interest of the AW fans on here, using the wet beach analogy, surely even harrowed wet sand would ride appreciably faster than any form of dry?
It strikes me that Ascot and to a lesser degree York seem to replicate these conditions in wet weather so I must surmise they have a higher than average sand content in the soil.
Very little sand in the Knavesmire’s soil; it’s described as a silty-clay loam i.e not as heavy as a pure clay soil but a long way removed from a sandy loam and other lighter soils. The soil is deep and while the structure has been generally good up until recent years it’s now begun to suffer compaction and easy waterlogging; hence the extensive seven-month drainage work due to begin after the Ebor meeting
Regarding Ascot: I’m as confused as anyone about the apparent fast time of the VC. Can only assume the sample size from which the standard time is derived is not large enough to be robust.
Anyone considered the possible modifying effects of wind speed and direction, both on saturday’s race and those few (since reopening) from which the standards have been compiled?
And – in quantifiable terms – just what effect does missing out a fence have on time?
Surely not as straightforward a matter as rationalising it away akin to: because Tamarinbleu won in a time similar to that of Bleu Superbe over CD in December on official GF, then either the going on Saturday wasn’t soft, or Tamarinbleu put up a spectacular time performance.
Regarding Ascot: I’m as confused as anyone about the apparent fast time of the VC. Can only assume the sample size from which the standard time is derived is not large enough to be robust.
From my records.
Average standard times in seconds for all European courses ( Chase ), at this class and distance, over the past 10 years, are :-
Good 254
G/S 264
Soft 270Ascot 13:45 winning time was 253.4.
If a piece of wet ground is subject to much punishment at the hands (well, feet) of a miriad of spectators, Triple_Crown, surely it would be sufficiently compressed to feel fairly firm underfoot?
Just as an side, Shawanda displaced her pelvis in the Arc having travelled like the best horse for much of the way. Do we know if this was the cause of her ‘slip’, or if it was a direct result of it?
The person who told me it was moving underfoot will not have been walking where many spectators were. He also covered quite a bit of ground on the track, not just the final furlong!
Quadrilla, please explain to me how you can possibly apply a blanket "standard time" to a distance regardless of the track it is run on? That is the crux of British racing – the tracks are so individual and each has their own quirks. You couldn’t possibly apply and compare the same standard time to a 2m race at, say, Aintree and Cheltenham as the contours and tracks are completely different. Not to mention that at a lot of tracks the distances vary ever so slightly – all "2m" races are not run over a distance of 2m dead.
Shadow Leader
Your right, every track has its own standard times. I have made the slight correction if the distance is not exactly 17 furlongs.
Richard wanted a larger sample, I assume because there was insufficient results from Ascot.
You cannot get a bigger average sample than the one produced. The times originate from the full Raceform data base. Take them or leave them – I don’t think that they are too far away tho’.
I understand what you are saying but you cannot possibly have a decent enough sized sample from which to judge when it comes to Ascot standard times. The track was changed when the course was rebuilt so we are only in the second NH season there. Hence I totally agree with RH that the sample size for Ascot is not robust enough. You really can’t use standard European times as an accurate comparison as Ascot is not a uniform track (as indeed, not many UK tracks are).
If you go to Nov 18th you will see that Demi Beau posted a Topspeed figure of 151 over CD with a 0.16 faster GA
Now i’m not sure i’ve done this correct, but taking into account the differences in GA, weight carried and races times, it gives a 22lb better performance by Tamarinblueu than that of Demi Beau on similar going
Which i personally found interesting
Until someone measures the ACTUAL distance at Ascot – imho, the time will remain a mystery.
Look at all the results at Ascot since the new course was laid.
It shows a disproportionate amount of winners who run prominently.
Therefore it could be (on the whole) jockeys have been going too slow early, leaving it too late to catch the front runners.
This would explain why times so far have been slow, and why the Victor Chandler (a grade 1 that should be a bit faster) appears very fast.
I wonder if Tom Scudamore and David Pipe are the first trainer and jockey to realise this.Value Is EverythingAverage time in soft going at 17F is 270 sec / 3740 yards = 13.85 yards per second.
Race time 253.4 x 13.85 yds/sec = 3509. 3509/220 yards = 11 yards short of 16 Furlongs. Spooky !!!!!!
The allowed variance is only 110 yards. Not 231 yards.
Did Ascot start the race at the 2 mile poles ?
- Total Posts 17716
Average time in soft going at 17F is 270 sec / 3740 yards = 13.85 yards per second.
Race time 253.4 x 13.85 yds/sec = 3509. 3509/220 yards = 11 yards short of 16 Furlongs. Spooky !!!!!!
The allowed variance is only 110 yards. Not 231 yards.
Did Ascot start the race at the 2 mile poles ?
Not a chance Quadrilla.
They jumped one fence before turning into the straight, the 2m start is actually in the straight.Spot on reet hard, I have watched the start again. And taken some sectional times.
If the start ( plus a few yards to the 4Fur pole ) to the finish line ( first 4Fur ) took 1min 7sec.
The 4Fur pole to the finish ( last 4Fur ) took 1min 7sec.Could the middle 9Fur be run in exactly 2min ?
9Fur in a faster time by 14 sec than 8Fur !
Nice work Quadrilla
Is there anyone out there who knows exactly what work was done to the NH track during Ascot’s closure?
Have any fences been rebuilt and/or re-sited?
Has any drainage work been done on the round course?
Has any turf been relaid on the round course or, if re-sown, was a ‘lighter’ soil imported as a seedbed?
Has the inside rail been moved?
Has any landscaping taken place i.e removal of undulations?
Has the Clerk actually been out with his yard-wheel to check the race distances?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.