- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Wolverhampton stages the first meeting today following extensive work to the track.
I’d be interested to hear the views of our AW time experts on how fast/slow it’s riding.
I await with interest to see if Wolverhampton’s extensive work on the track fixes the balling and kickback problem, the mild weather today will help.
I might be able to put to bed finally, the urban myth that there is a going description on a
polytrack
surface such as
standard to slow
, in my time of compiling AW speed figures, I haven’t even come close to a
standard to slow
going allowance figure.
AW going allowance table:
Fast +0.50s/f
Stand/Fast +0.18s/f to +0.40s/f
Standard -0.15s/f to +0.15s/fStand/Slow -0.48s/f to -0.18s/f
Slow -0.70s/f to -0.50s/f
Even on the Fibresand at Southwell, twice this year on the 5f chute, I had going allowance figures at the top end of the scale of
+0.50s/f per furlong
(fast)
.
The only surface where I am likely to record a (standard to slow) going allowance figure, would be on the
Tapeta
at Meydan.
I could ask the advice of the racing pundits on ATR or Racing UK, but why bother, collectively they know less than I do
I feel better now, time to get off my soapbox
Try looking the whole of Dec 2010 at Wolv if you think it’s never slow.
I stand corrected it looks like you were right
I looked at the meeting at Wolverhampton on the 29/12/10.
Dave Edwards had his going allowance at-0.24
(standard to slow) and using the going allowance calculation which I developed during 2012, I ended up with
-0.17
(standard to slow).
Wolverhampton speed figures 29/12/10:
(No WFA)
01:25 Ajara 5f -0.1773
02:00 Amica 7f -0.17
40
02:35 Ethics Girl 2m½f -0.17
67
03:10 Mighty Clarets 1m1½f -0.17
49
03:40 Final Drive 1m1½f -0.17
83
04:10 Straversjoy 1m4f -0.17
56
Maybe the reason the Polytrack is riding faster today, compared to 2010, be just down to a different makeup, the new Polytrack at Lingfield is different to the old one, it’s yellow in colour
The results are in, did the 40,000 gallons of binder plus the continuous rain slow the polytrack down, no it didn’t
.This was the lowest quality field that has run in the past year, excluding the 2yo’s, the average official mark of the winners was only
58
, this will be the figure I will use plus my lbs per length and the winners official marks to calculate the going allowance.
The going allowance for last nights meeting was
+0.18s/f
per furlong (standard to fast).
Wolverhampton speed figures:
(No WFA)
03:50 Small Fury 5f 0.1856
04:20 Resonare 5f 0.18
50
04:50 Flying Power 1m4f 0.18
61
05:20 Big Sylv 1m½f 0.18
48
05:50 Good Speech 1m1½f 0.18
42
06:20 Reasons Unknown 1m1½f 0.18
34
06:50 Bang Tidy 7f 0.18
60
07:20 Strong Man 7f 0.18
66
Looking at the winners past performances, I am happy with the speed figures produced
I’ve got the going allowance as exactly the same as for the meeting on 4th Dcember, the last meeting before they closed down
I have both meetings as ‘slow 20’ which means 20lbs per mile slower than standard or approx 6 lengths per mile
Should be a test today as I’m going to assess the afternoon and evening cards seperately…………..one would hope that the allowance will be approx the same, although logically the track might speed up in the evening as it gets colder
Be interesting to see if the two GAs are different and wether it’s possible to explain the difference within the methodology
Should be a test today as I’m going to assess the afternoon and evening cards seperately…………..one would hope that the allowance will be approx the same, although logically the track might speed up in the evening as it gets colder
Be interesting to see if the two GAs are different and whether it’s possible to explain the difference within the methodology
I started off by calculating the going allowance in two parts i.e. afternoon and evening sessions.
I ended up with same going allowance of
+0.22s/f
per furlong for both sessions (standard to fast), the polytrack had speeded by 4lbs per furlong from the previous day
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.