- This topic has 11 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have just emailed The Racing Post to ask about the times recorded for the York Meeting on the 21st May i.e.
2:35 Chachamaidee – TIME 1m 21.85s (fast by 1.65s)
3:40 Masamah – TIME 56.58s (fast by 1.12s)
4:15 Brocklebank – TIME 1m 10.44s (fast by 0.06s)
4:50 Common Touch – TIME 1m 22.12s (fast by 1.38s)Dave Edwards has no going correction for the meeting as the going was good; ok I’ll agree with that.
When I started to work out my speed figures I realised something was wrong.
The Top speed figure for <b>Chachamaidee</b> was <b>92</b> but if you take the racetime of being 1.65s faster than standard the Top Speed rating should be <b>118</b> (wgt 8.11).
I am not expecting an answer from The Racing Post or Dave Edwards on this question <!– s:shock: –>
<!– s:shock: –>Dave Edwards has no going correction for the meeting as the going was good; ok I’ll agree with that.
Was Good the assessment generally? i.e RP DE Timeform Raceform…etc
If so I would be most surprised. Wasn’t there on Saturday but had two strolls across and around t’mire earlier last week and while I was hardly concentrating on the elucidation of going the thought crossed my mind ‘fast going at the weekend’ as beneath the admittedly lush grass (all credit to the groundstaff this tricky Spring) there was little or no give.
Nature did no more than spit fleeting showers between walk and weekend, and I doubt they could have put sufficient artificial water on to alter the going markedly: the transpiration from that lush grass exacerbated by a near-continuous breeze would have prevented that
The F-Word – appended or alone – a ‘no brainer’ IMVHO and in that of my left achilles tendon
When Dave Edwards compiled his ratings for the race he definitely
used a going allowance when coming up with a rating of 92 for Chachamaidee, or a complete set of different times.I had just awarded the highest rating of
87
for a 2yo this year to
Power
that ran at the Curragh on Sat 21st May, and if I believed the times for York I would have had to award a rating of approx
100
to
Brocklebank
in a run of the mill 2yo race.
I decided not to rate the York meeting as I would end up with fantasy figures
- Total Posts 17716
Don’t understand where you’re getting these violent fluctations in variance with your figures, mine seem perfectly fine calculating the routes from the 5-7f.
5-7f
Ground – Hard (5.93)91.34 Chachamaidee (poor)
90.78 Masamah (poor)
80.71 Brocklebank (very poor)
89.52 Common Touch (Decent)12-14f
Ground – Good to Firm (2.02)88.29 Just Lille (Good)
94.68 Times Up (Decent)
81.74 Ravi River (Poor)Pretty average to me, on average they were -3.03s outside standard for the routes and 1.04 under standard for the other races. Theres a 1.99s difference there so the routers probably encountered some form of headwind although I remember in the past York and Haydock have had problems go and check the 12th of May 2010 were Imposing, Aviate and Arlequin all had strange times.
- Total Posts 17716
Some years since I took full interest, but I do recall the RP standard time for York’s 7f was highly questionable, back then?
The other 7f race on the card also produced a high s/f for the class.Just checked the results times analysis for york and a going correction of +0.27s/f has been added, maybe it was a glitch in the system
@ reet hard
Just rated the York meeting:
Just Lille
56
Chachamaidee
94
Times Up
70
Masamah
98
Brocklebank
74
Common Touch
94
Ravi River
72
Both 7f races received a rating of
94
I do not use WFA and adjust the ratings to 9-0, i.e. 9-3 = +3
and 8-11 = -3Ratings:
http://tinyurl.com/3h5zupw(Excel.xls)
Dave Bellingham has it corrected by 0.3 seconds per furlong on the 7f course with Raceform reporting the wind as "Fresh strong behind".
……. with Raceform reporting the wind as "Fresh strong behind".
Really do not like the way the wind assessments are done, it literally is finger in the air and very subjective.
Richard Hoiles and I are trying to get RfC to do something useful like getting wind gauges available at racecourses so there can be proper wind readings – really became an issue after the Guineas meeting and all the course records.
Dave Bellingham has it corrected by 0.3 seconds per furlong on the 7f course with Raceform reporting the wind as "Fresh strong behind".
Like so many going/time/speedfigure threads before it, this one is in danger of following them down the ever-decreasing circles of Maelstrom. But for what it’s worth:
I was in my garden most of Saturday afternoon and the wind was moderate generally south of westerly, so it would have been side-head down the back and side-behind in the home straight
Though I have made no allowance for the turbulating effects of Knavesmire Wood or Terry’s Chocolate Factory
Agree with you about the wind assessments, Paul. Your campaign if it came to fruition would certainly be a step forward.
The winds from Church Fenton and Linton-On-Ouse on Saturday afternoon suggest South-South Westerly at around 23mph, so certainly helping.
Richard Hoiles and I are trying to get RfC to do something useful like getting wind gauges available at racecourses so there can be proper wind readings
Recall seeing a weather-vane and anemometer attached to an electronic box-of-tricks at Doncaster near the entrance to the winners enclosure, if memory serves
York has an orange windsock around the 2f pole, though whether this transmits any data I don’t know
Good luck with a thoroughly worthwhile venture Paul
Yep, near-behind on the 7f chute CR
<!– s:shock: –>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.