- This topic has 24 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Are you sure this guy has no Sleepy Hollow connections? For a man working from first principles, it was depressing to see that some of his pronouncements appeared to be lifted directly from The Tablets.
Glenn,
Can’t be Glenn. Bob Wilkins is an educated man with a PhD in Electrical Engineering. Not read the book yet but I have used similar sounding total energy methods for the last decade which is why I have a go at BHA for providing horse weights if they are still going to take UK handicap races seriously ie horse goes up 10 pounds for winning but down 20 pounds in body weight as it reaches peak fitness etc. Public think it caries +10 when it actually carries
-10 pounds.Rob,
The book basically divides in to two parts. The first part applies the academic literature on biomechanics to horse racing. The second part part moves towards him applying these theories, which has him leaning on the racing literature in places for standard times and such like. It’s here that he trips up a little, copying Sleepy Hollow’s mistakes.
I don’t want to be overcritical. The book’s on a different level to anything else racing related I’ve read in a long time, but it underlines that you should question everything
which has him leaning on the racing literature in places for standard times and such like. It’s here that he trips up a little, copying Sleepy Hollow’s mistakes.
That’ll be using Racing Post standard times and handicapping methodology proposed by a former Raceform handicapper which bears little similarity to the standard times or handicapping methods used by Timeform.
Still, let’s not get off the point. As you say, the book is of a different calibre to most of what you are likely to read. I suggest the main "questioning of everything" that needs to go on is by the reader in all things, including here.
If you plug the parameters in Table 1.2 (p15) along with the world record data from Table 1.1 (p3) and the Cr value (3.86) into equations 13 or 14 (p12&13) aren’t the LHS & RHS meant to be equal (within computational error as he says)? They seem to match for the 1500m and maybe 800m races for me but not the others. Am I doing summat wrong here?
100m
Equation 14 LHS=56.11 RHS=75.40
Equation 13 LHS=537.5 RHS=722.37200m
LHS 50.91 RHS 63.85
LHS 976.97 RHS 1225.40400m
LHS 43.58 RHS 48.37
LHS 1881.99 RHS 2088.77800m
LHS 36.73 RHS 37.16
LHS 3713.78 RHS 3757.641500m
LHS 32.81 RHS 32.81
LHS 6759.01 RHS 6760.62We have a Q&A with the author in the Q&A section Indocine – why not put your question to Bob Wilkins in there?
I have got my copy at last and enjoyed it.
I think that it needs quite a bit of testing out as some of the assumptions are questionable. Some of the reference data used is very old and modern testing methods have provided far more realistic veterinary data.
One of the key factors in training is getting a horse to keep going when its muscles get full of lactate and ammonia. The horse is still at peak heart rate but the high oxygen level within the blood is not doing much good as far a locomotion is concerned. The curves did not specifically allow for this slowing.
The creatine third energy supply lasts for the first minute as a boost especially to sprinters and has been ignored. The aerobic energy supply starts from the off and its curve is not at all like the exponentially shaped one shown. For chasers it is not correct to spread the huge energy demands at each jump over the whole race.
Getting the total race time to agree with standard times is one thing but the key thing to check is that the sectional times within the race are credible and that the horse speed does not exceed the maximum at some point and crawl at others. That check seems to have been omitted. So any subsequent conclusions from the model may be suspect.
The issue I have with the single power rating is that a horse with a lower one will, in theory, run behind for the whole race – there is no allowance for leading then fading or any other pace scenario that models how it actually runs. Trying to categorise a horse’s ability by a single rating for me is doomed in any case.
Trying to categorise a horse’s ability by a single rating for me is doomed in any case.
I’m sure most, if not all, on here would agree with that but the ‘power rating’ is appealing as it might
a)Provide an extra perspective, an additional clue and
b) be a rating that is not widely used and therefore potentially offer an ‘edge’It’s an interesting concept for me since it fits with the idea that horses have a top level of performance and can only perform within certain limits. In other words it fits with the trends theories and Nick Mordin approach which I find useful in my decision making.
I must find out more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.