- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I keep hearing people talking about easy 3 miles and a stiff 3 miles in terms of horse racing. Now I can see why some horses might have a preference for flat or undulating tracks.
But can a horse that fails to get the last furlong of a three mile race around Cheltenham really get that much further on a flat track??? If so, how much further could a horse get?
Also, is it true that tight tracks are a lesser demand on horses because of constant turning takes the momentum away from the race. Ive heard this said
SHL
How much do hills affect a horse’s speed? For jumps racing this is difficult to quantify since there are so many other variables involved in the timing, but for a flat example just compare the time on the old Brighton downhill course to the course at Ascot. Horses at Brighton at the turn of the 20th century were going 6 furlongs in 1:08 and change
. Santa Anita’s downhill turf isn’t quite as sloped, but any "world record" set on that course should also have an asterisk by it. On the other hand, many a talented 3yo has not taken well to Epsom Down’s uphill stretch. The Epsom track record of 2m 31.33s is nearly 9 seconds slower than Santa Anita’s world record* of 2m 22.63sTight tracks are
more demanding
on horses. By tight I’m talking less than 7 furlongs circumference – a "bullring" track. A horse has to go slower around a turn, same as a car or bicycle. Bigger horses typically do better at bigger tracks (though there are exceptions – there was a great old stakes horse at my local bullring, Confucius Say, who had to be at least 17.2hh).
However, UK tracks aren’t perfect ovals and their broad sweeping curves have less of an effect. Obviously the straight Rowley Mile allows for faster times than a mile round a bend, but in general the courses aren’t nearly as biased.
I keep hearing people talking about easy 3 miles and a stiff 3 miles in terms of horse racing. Now I can see why some horses might have a preference for flat or undulating tracks.
But can a horse that fails to get the last furlong of a three mile race around Cheltenham really get that much further on a flat track??? If so, how much further could a horse get?
Also, is it true that tight tracks are a lesser demand on horses because of constant turning takes the momentum away from the race. Ive heard this said
Simply test it for yourself. Run a certain distance on the flat and then run the same on an undulating course and see how winded you are afterwards. It’s not that they’ll necessarily get further on a flatter course, although this is sometimes the case, but they’ll have more energy to tackle that final furlong.
Tight tracks are more demanding. Yes, the race may be run slightly more slowly, but the horses are also constantly fighting not to drift right across the track to the far rail all the time so again using more energy than if just running on a flat straight course.
It’s a different ball game as well at present they plod along in their own slow time in a little 4 runner affair but come the Festival in a big field on a stiff undulating track they wait impatiently for the tape to go up before setting off like a greyhound.
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
It’s a different ball game as well at present they plod along in their own slow time in a little 4 runner affair but come the Festival in a big field on a stiff undulating track they wait impatiently for the tape to go up before setting off like a greyhound.
I well understand that. I do wonder though why a tight track would be deemed more demanding? Surely if the nature of the track encourages a horse to go slower, stamina would be less of an issue than on a big galloping track, where the accelerator is down constantly.
SHL
- Total Posts 764
It’s a different ball game as well at present they plod along in their own slow time in a little 4 runner affair but come the Festival in a big field on a stiff undulating track they wait impatiently for the tape to go up before setting off like a greyhound.
I well understand that. I do wonder though why a tight track would be deemed more demanding? Surely if the nature of the track encourages a horse to go slower, stamina would be less of an issue than on a big galloping track, where the accelerator is down constantly.
Maybe a good comparison to make would be a car cruising along at 30mph in 4th gear compared to a car that’s stop and starting while stuck in traffic – which would use more petrol?
Horses racing round two turns – like in the States – are supposed to stay further than on European straight courses because it allows time for a jockey to "get a breather" into them ie they aren’t running flat out all the way.
It is interesting that Newmarket – particularly the July course – is considered to be a stiff track due to the severity of the climb to the winning post from the furlong marker (which is extraordinary, especially viewed looking up the straight).
However as horses are running downhill for long sections before the final grind their times can be quite quick ie the median for 6f is 1.12.5 which is considerably faster than Ascot’s 1.14.5.
It’s a different ball game as well at present they plod along in their own slow time in a little 4 runner affair but come the Festival in a big field on a stiff undulating track they wait impatiently for the tape to go up before setting off like a greyhound.
I well understand that. I do wonder though why a tight track would be deemed more demanding? Surely if the nature of the track encourages a horse to go slower, stamina would be less of an issue than on a big galloping track, where the accelerator is down constantly.
Thinking of school physics (a long time ago)……running around a bend ‘is’ accelerating even if you go at the same speed
You have to accelerate to veer off the straight line
So on a perfectly circular track the horses would be accelerating for the whole trip just to get round the bends
I think so anyway……..I did fail physics O level !
Yeah, Physics is all very well. But Im guess that a horse probably has to be steadied to make the tighter turns.
SHL
Yeah, Physics is all very well. But Im guessing that a horse probably has to be steadied to make the tighter turns.
SHL
Horses racing round two turns – like in the States – are supposed to stay further than on European straight courses because it allows time for a jockey to "get a breather" into them ie they aren’t running flat out all the way.
No, they are supposed to stay further because it takes
more stamina
. Americans generally call two turn mile a route race and a one turn mile a sprint, because a sprinter can carry their speed to a one-turn mile but will usually falter to two turns. So when a horse that’s been running on tight inner turf courses is introduced to European turf, assuming that they take to the softer surface and different racing style, they will stay further.
Saratoga’s tight jumps course takes an awful lot of stamina, too, and some horses *cough* Hunt Ball *cough* can’t handle it well. My old man Flatterer ran well at < 2 1/2 miles at Saratoga and Monmouth and was able to stretch out to ~3 1/8 on yielding turf at Autueil without trouble.
. Santa Anita’s downhill turf isn’t quite as sloped, but any "world record" set on that course should also have an asterisk by it. On the other hand, many a talented 3yo has not taken well to Epsom Down’s uphill stretch. The Epsom track record of 2m 31.33s is nearly 9 seconds slower than Santa Anita’s world record* of 2m 22.63s
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.