- This topic has 30 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Perhaps the current vogue for sectional timing in this country, at least, represents an attempt to over-complicate the issue; assessing overall race times at some courses, Goodwood for example, is difficult enough on it’s own. Surely, an appraisal of the winning race time, alone, together with an estimate of the level to which the winner should be capable of performing, provides the bettor with sufficient information?
But supposing, say, you see a horse winning a race by a length in par time and you have sectional data which can give you the following additional information about what happened in the final furlong:
a) The horse accelerated to win;
or b) The horse stayed on at the same pace to win;
or c) The horse was decelerating to win.
Taking a), this strongly suggests that the horse won with something in hand, wheras c) suggests that the horse had given everything. It is very unlikely that anyone could accurately assess which is which by ‘eye’ alone, and even if you could, it is even more unlikely that you would be able to quantify the degree of acceleration or deceleration by ‘eye’ alone.Interesting thread Jim.
I have often wondered about the uneven pace which one usually sees in top class human 400 and 800 metre races, and whether even pace really produces the best performances in the shorter horse racing distances.
Without any evidence to back it up, I have come to think that the best sprinting performances often result from a fast early pace allied to slipstreaming. I wonder if your thinking has considered the peleton effect? Normally unimportant in athletics but surely a factor with racehorses travelling at 40 mph?
Blackheath,
Thanks, I did some work in the past on energy expenditure of world championship level track running events. The available sectional times are fairly accurate, you can assume that the racing track is flat and of even consistency and wind speed data are also available … in other words, many of the variables are nicely tied down.
The 100m for both men and women is fueled entirely from the athletes anaerobic store. They take about 6s to reach maximum speed and this is substantially maintained to the finishing line. Things change for 200m because the anaerobic store alone is insufficient as a fuel supply. Typically, the runners go off slightly more slowly, reach maximum speed again at about 6s and gradually slow from then to the finishing line. The fuel is supplied both anaerobically and aerobically. As I said earlier in this thread, it can be shown that a linear decay in propulsive force is the optimal strategy. Record breaking 200m performances display this strategy and associated speed profile, as do many sprints in horse racing (so, your intuition is almost spot on!). However, things are a little more complicated in horse racing because of track configuration and going etc.
400m is run in a similar way to 200m, but with the maximum speed being somewhat lower. At 800m things again change because more often than not the runners start relatively slowly and gradually speed-up throughout the race. This is not an optimal strategy for making best use of energy, so why do it this way? The answer is that for 800m and above, it is important to include psychology, the runners are running against each other, rather than against the clock. There is more to it, but that is the important part(s).
Peleton effect is potentially important in horse racing, especially in sprints … there has been wind tunnel test research which ‘suggest’ that overcoming drag may amount to about 25% of the energy cost of running. That said, I’m not sure how that knowledge can be usefully employed, other than getting the jockey to adopt as streamlined a stance as possible!
Peleton effect is potentially important in horse racing, especially in sprints … there has been wind tunnel test research which ‘suggest’ that overcoming drag may amount to about 25% of the energy cost of running. That said, I’m not sure how that knowledge can be usefully employed, other than getting the jockey to adopt as streamlined a stance as possible!
Jim
Any views on ‘streamlined’ silks for jockeys? Seem to remember Alan Munro broke with the mould and tried them some years ago
Several athletes, notably the disgraced Marion Jones, have adopted streamlined, all enveloping kit, so presumably drag is reduced if clothing is skin tight
Perhaps jockeys should also wear aerodynamic helmets akin to that strange headgear beloved of pursuit cyclists, or perhaps the horse should
American jocks seem adept at ‘tucking in’ close behind the horses neck/head, so much so it would appear they’re told/taught to do this.
Fascinating stuff, Jim.
The descriptions of how the sprints and middle distances are best run in athletics tempts me into an analogy with horse racing. They do seem quite similar in many respects and this helps a lot in understanding the importance of pace.
Perhaps jockeys should also wear aerodynamic helmets akin to that strange headgear beloved of pursuit cyclists, or perhaps the horse should
Drone, I really like the idea of your aerodynamically ‘designed’ horse, can’t remember seeing that being specifically barred in the Rules of Racing!
Almost anything that cuts down on the exposed cross sectional area will help reduce drag, as will anything that makes the flow of air over the ‘body’ less turbulent. So, I would have thought that American jockeys are on the right lines, which wouldn’t be all that surprising, given the prominence of the clock/time in their racing.
Artemis, Yes, I started with human track running because it was easier to isolate the variables and learn what is really important. The results I obtained apply to most types of animal motion (kangaroos and snakes excepted!), because we are all subject to Newton’s Laws! For the mathematically minded, I have developed a semi-analytical solution to a differential equation which relates velocity, acceleration and propulsive force (ie equations of motion) for any motional event. It allows me to ‘extract’ continuous functions of instantaneous velocity, acceleration, force etc. Also, by making well accepted biomechanical assumptions I can also access work done, power, energy consumption etc.
I am currently working on the application of these techniques to horse racing.
Drone, I really like the idea of your aerodynamically ‘designed’ horse, can’t remember seeing that being specifically barred in the Rules of Racing!
Swain Chambers, Asapha Foal or Tyson Bay, perhaps?
I guess one part of a horse that would lend itself to aiding or hampering any aims of greater speed through is the tail. We hear anecdotally of horses being "propelled by their tails" in a race; equally we have seen horses having their tails tied right up to prevent mud getting into them and weight them down. What do you think would constitute the position / treatment of the tail likeliest to offer the best aerodynamic performance?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
I always think of Dettori as being exceptional by European standards for minimising wind resistance by getting down behind the horses neck. Possibly Piggott did it the other way by adopting the downhill ski racer position i.e the egg on two sticks?
Jim what I should have written instead of streamlining was slipstreaming. But streamlining is interesting too.
In athletics the mechanics of the elite athletes movement is honed to "perfection". In track cycling they spend enormous amounts of time and effort minimising drag and maximising slipstreaming. Meanwhile the application of scientific knowledge to horse racing barely seems to scratch the surface.
You are trying to buck a deeply entrenched culture of prefering the witch doctor to the GP. Don’t worry though race commentators will still insist that the winner quickened up nicely when he was actually slowing down. It sounds better.
gc,
I’m not an aerodynamics expert, but if I had free rein I think I would begin by removing the head of the jockey and/or of the horse!
Seriously though, I’m sure you can think of courses where you can (safely!) position yourself to watch them coming towards you in the home straight. Whenever I do so I see mostly arms and legs going all ways. That is an almost complete opposite to best practice in aerodynamics. But, it may be that good aerodynamics is secondary to the importance of the jockey being in a strong driving position. Very often the mathematical modelling fails to satisfactorily capture complex situations and that is why wind tunnels are so frequently used in this area. Equally, the wind tunnel research often guides the mathematical modelling.
As for the horse’s tail, it is almost certainly bad news aerodynamically if it is flopping about, but that possibly negative effect is likely (I suspect) to be an order of magnitude less detrimental than the effect of the ‘arms and legs’ I mentioned earlier.
On a more thoughtful note, I see frequent examples, this area being one, where A-level physics may provide clues to finding racing (and punting) advantages. Doing the ‘right’ thing aerodynamically may make the difference between winning and losing a Group I race. Surprisingly, there is little evidence that I can see of science being exploited by the top, well financed operations, at least at this, the sharp end of racing.
Jim
As for the horse’s tail, it is almost certainly bad news aerodynamically if it is flopping about, but that possibly negative effect is likely (I suspect) to be an order of magnitude less detrimental than the effect of the ‘arms and legs’ I mentioned earlier.
The tail in many species is a vital aid to balance e.g cats and monkeys, but whether it’s of any importance to horses, it being smaller and lighter relative to body size/weight than the aforementioned, I don’t know. There’s been several who’ve run happily with no/part tails such as the well-named No Tale To Tell who gained a handicap hurdle mark in the 120’s
Blackheath,
We seem to have been typing at about the same time and have crossed somewhat, interesting though that we were independantly thinking on the same lines. I had in fact assumed that you were (mostly) referring to ‘slipstreaming’ earlier.
I agree with you on Dettori and Piggott, in the latter case I think that power overcame bad aerodynamics, frequently, given his success!
Jim
So, as well as the usual blinkers, visor, hood, eye-shields, nosebands and cheekpieces, perhaps ‘nose cone’ should be a consideration for trainers of slower horses…
So, as well as the usual blinkers, visor, hood, eye-shields, nosebands and cheekpieces, perhaps ‘nose cone’ should be a consideration for trainers of slower horses…
It would be of even greater advantage to the faster horses, because the power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is proportional to the cube of speed, making it progressively more difficult to go faster. As Blackheath has said, it is an important consideration for racing cyclists, and their speeds are not too different from horse race speeds, but, even at worst, the cyclist is much more aerodynamically efficient than a race horse and jockey combination.
I think that ‘nose cones’ in owner’s colour could be quite fetching!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.