the standard 0.2 seconds per length arguement

[mr forecast]

i would like to ask if there is anyone who produces thier own speed figures whether they use the standard 0.2 seconds per length which i must point out it the racing standard

or is there anyone who questions this and uses a different method

i run one database with the 0.2 second rule

but also run adifferent one which uses a completley different method which returns a different figure for each race

now before you all go expert on me the different method is considerably more in profit than the standard one which is why i have started this question

i dont want to know why you think im wrong,but would like to know whether anyone does use a different method

both speed figures are calculated in exactly the same way apart from the length per seconds bit

i do appreciate your co-operation and will go more into detail later…

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I’m no expert, but I’ve always worked on the basis of 1 second = 6 lengths, which means that 1 length = 0.167 seconds (rounded up).

I’ve also always worked on the basis that speed figures are only really any use for all weather racing.

Brian

[Anonymous]

It’a about 0.20 seconds per length.
I measured it several times, since the requirement for calling stewards enquiry in Greece is that you have to be less or up to 2 lengths behind the horse that made the obstruction. It turns out to be about so.
But don’t you have partial speeds, losers times given to you in seconds and you have to convert from lengths ?
That’s a little archaic, makes things difficult.

Also the "note-takers", whether it is lengths they announce or seconds, sometimes make hideous mistakes. I hate it when I encounter one such.

[discretedata]

2 seconds per length equates to around 3 miles per hour.

Are all the horses in Greece that slow?

[Anonymous]

2 seconds per length equates to around 3 miles per hour.

Are all the horses in Greece that slow?

I corrected that

[mr forecast]

racing post say 0.2 which is why i question it

i work between 0.17 and 0.2 depending on race length

i dont think it matters if you use the same time for every calculation

when i use the 0.17-0.2 it does seem to work better against just using the standard.

i was just wondering what ever ones perception was on this matter

i tried to work out how they came up with this figure and when you look at how long a length is in meters/feet then work it into the distance you get a slightly different outcome were the majority are 0.2

so i assume 0.2 was chosen as it was the majority figure over the distance

its quite surprising how different tracks have different length times due to the record times of the races achieved

[discretedata]

I’ve dug out something I’ve kept since 2004 and uploaded it to GoogleDocs. It may be of interest.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BzriKHhwpRQQOGVjM2M2OWItNzY3Zi00YWEwLTgyOGYtYWRkNGVkM2ExY2E2&hl=en&authkey=CLK7y_0G

[Anonymous]

racing post say 0.2 which is why i question it

i work between 0.17 and 0.2 depending on race length

i dont think it matters if you use the same time for every calculation

when i use the 0.17-0.2 it does seem to work better against just using the standard.

i was just wondering what ever ones perception was on this matter

i tried to work out how they came up with this figure and when you look at how long a length is in meters/feet then work it into the distance you get a slightly different outcome were the majority are 0.2

so i assume 0.2 was chosen as it was the majority figure over the distance

its quite surprising how different tracks have different length times due to the record times of the races achieved

Should n’t matter, as long as the notetaker makes the correct entries.
For if the difference first to last is 15 lengths and you make that 3 seconds instead of 2.7 seconds it only changes the time scale of the race.
What might be of more importance is that some horses finish strong and some others in slow motion so the time/length conversion is non-uniform.

[Author]

Posts