- This topic has 33 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I was very surprised on how fast the <b>Tapeta</b> surface had speeded up during last nights meeting at Wolverhampton, I had the going allowance at <b>+0.28s/f</b> (standard to fast).
This brings the speed of the Tapeta up with both the polytrack surfaces at Kempton which is normally around <b>+0.30s/f</b> and Lingfield <b>+0.25s/f</b> <!– s8) –>
<!– s8) –> 1st meeting = -0.16s/f (standard)
2nd meeting = +0.02s/f (standard)
3nd meeting = +0.09s/f (standard)
4th Meeting = +0.18s/f (standard to fast)
5th Metting = +0.13s/f (standard)
6th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
7th Meeting = +0.17s/f (standard to fast)
8th Meeting = +0.18s/f (standard to fast)
9th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
10th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
11th Meeting = +0.28s/f (standard to fast)<b>AW going allowance table:</b>
Fast +0.50s/f
Stand/Fast +0.18s/f to +0.40s/f
Standard -0.15s/f to +0.15s/f
Stand/Slow -0.48s/f to -0.18s/f
Slow -0.70s/f to -0.50s/fAfter 11 meetings, I have my Standard times on the Wolverhampton Tapeta as:-
Distance Yards ST(secs)Runs
5f20y 1120 55.34 12
5f216y 1316 67.39 15
7f32y 1572 79.85 22
1m141y 1901 97.11 13
1m1f103y 2083 107.09 6
1m4f50y 2690 142.12 10
1m5f194y 3054 161.98 2
2m119y 3639 201.64 1
These as all faster than the Poly Track bar two which are onlt 0.5 slow, but we need more runs. I expect they will speed up too in time.
All standard times at:-
http://www.racingsense.com/frequentquestions.htm
Mick Johnson
Simple Software RacingInteresting stuff Mick.
No doubt the main reason you are finding that your new Wolverhampton
Tapeta
standard times are faster than the old polytrack standards, is simply down to the fact that the Ruben brothers in their attempt to solve the kickback, mixed Fibresand into the polytrack surface which slowed the surface down considerably.
The
Tapeta
surface at Wolverhampton seems to have settled down now, it is now riding very similar (speed wise) to the
Polytrack
surfaces at Kempton and Lingfield.
26.09.14 12th Meeting =
+0.23s/f
(standard to fast)
27.09.14 13th Meeting =+0.21s/f
(standard to fast)
I thought some places had stopped using Tapeta? I did wonder about taking out shares in it
when it was first mentioned.
I’m still getting Tapeta faster than the Wolverhampton old poly track, except the 2m119y, after 13 meetiungs:-
Yards Dist ST Seconds Runs Course PolytrackST Difference(-Tapeta Faster)
1120 5f20y 54.96 13 WOLVHMPTN(AW) 56.29 -1.32
1316 5f216y 67.09 18 WOLVHMPTN(AW) 67.12 -0.02
1572 7f32y 79.75 29 WOLVHMPTN(AW) 81.1 -1.34
1901 1m141y 98.03 19 WOLVHMPTN(AW) 100.37 -2.33
2083 1m1f103y 108.03 9 WOLVHMPTN(AW) 110.83 -2.79
2690 1m4f50y 142.11 10 WOLVHMPTN(AW) 145.7 -3.58
3054 1m5f194y 160.28 3 WOLVHMPTN(AW) 165.77 -5.48
3639 2m119y 203.76 2 WOLVHMPTN(AW) 201.39 2.37The
Tapeta
surface at
Wolverhampton
continues to be consistent, last nights meeting the going allowance was
+0.16s/f
(standard)
1st meeting = -0.16s/f (standard)
2nd meeting = +0.02s/f (standard)
3nd meeting = +0.09s/f (standard)
4th Meeting = +0.18s/f (standard to fast)
5th Metting = +0.13s/f (standard)
6th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
7th Meeting = +0.17s/f (standard to fast)
8th Meeting = +0.18s/f (standard to fast)
9th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
10th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
11th Meeting = +0.28s/f (standard to fast)
12th Meeting = +0.23s/f (standard to fast)
13th Meeting = +0.21s/f (standard to fast)
14th Meeting = +0.23s/f (standard to fast)
15th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
16th Meeting = +0.24s/f (standard to fast)
17th Meeting = +0.16s/f (standard)AW going allowance table:
Fast +0.50s/f
Stand/Fast +0.18s/f to +0.40s/f
Standard -0.15s/f to +0.15s/f
Stand/Slow -0.48s/f to -0.18s/f
Slow -0.70s/f to -0.50s/fWent to Wolverhampton races last month, the surface looks terrific and even after a race looks almost as good
Not sure what happened last night but I had it going back to ‘slow’ again……..after it had settled down
last few meetings…..
30/09 – slow 20
03/10 – slow 20
04/10 – slow 17
09/10 – slow 40Maybe all the races were run at a slow pace which would skew the figures and show as a bigger going allowance ?
It’s can’t just be that they were poor races because my method incorporates class……..so ‘slow 40’ means 40lbs slower than animals of this class should do
@ slowly away
The only race that was
40lb
slow, was the
7.20
won by
Complicit
, the track wasn’t slow they just went at a crawl.
A decent contest. The early pace wasn´t strong, though, and it turned into a dash from the turn in.
I thought some places had stopped using Tapeta? I did wonder about taking out shares in it
when it was first mentioned.
Santa Anita tried Tapeta for the Breeders Cup in 2008 and 2009. Europeans had their best results and Santa Anita promptly reverted to dirt with US breeders complaining the Tapeta had upended their bloodlines.
(will be interesting to see what happens this year now that a lower-tier but enterprising HK trainer has taken a good but not great horse – Rich Tapestry – from the Sha Tin dirt training track to a US dirt Group 1 win – trainer’s first G1 anywhere and HK’s first in the US. though the horse is by Holy Roman Emperor and a Dermot Weld cast-off after not fulfilling middle-distance expectations.)
Meydan was built with Tapeta, opening March 2010. US horses stayed away, and it too has now been torn up in favour of dirt.
What on earth did the track staff at
Wolverhampton
do to the
Tapeta
last night (10.10.2014), it was riding quicker than Kempton’s polytrack at
+0.38s.f
(stand to fast)
I was amazed at the time time
Dazeen
put up in the 9.20 after being absent for 168 days and the time being quicker of the two divisions by
0.47sec
, I hope the trainer gets him out quick before the handicapper makes him pay (steering Job next run).
1st meeting = -0.16s/f (standard)
2nd meeting = +0.02s/f (standard)
3nd meeting = +0.09s/f (standard)
4th Meeting = +0.18s/f (standard to fast)
5th Metting = +0.13s/f (standard)
6th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
7th Meeting = +0.17s/f (standard to fast)
8th Meeting = +0.18s/f (standard to fast)
9th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
10th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
11th Meeting = +0.28s/f (standard to fast)
12th Meeting = +0.23s/f (standard to fast)
13th Meeting = +0.21s/f (standard to fast)
14th Meeting = +0.23s/f (standard to fast)
15th Meeting = +0.13s/f (standard)
16th Meeting = +0.24s/f (standard to fast)
17th Meeting = +0.16s/f (standard)
18th Meeting = +0.38s/f (standard to fast)AW going allowance table:
Fast +0.50s/f
Stand/Fast +0.18s/f to +0.40s/f
Standard -0.15s/f to +0.15s/f
Stand/Slow -0.48s/f to -0.18s/f
Slow -0.70s/f to -0.50s/fMike.
@ slowly away
The only race that was
40lb
slow, was the
7.20
won by
Complicit
, the track wasn’t slow they just went at a crawl.
A decent contest. The early pace wasn´t strong, though, and it turned into a dash from the turn in.
I’ve deleted my workings for the card now but that Complicit race was not one of the ones that I used for the going allowance…….I use the average of the 3 fastest and that was one of the slowest based on the difference between the raw speed figure and the winners official rating
My use of ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ is relative to the horse’s official rating so it’s not strictly based just on time – it’s based on class and time.
I haven’t done last night’s card yet……I’ll see what that comes out as !
Back to ‘fast’ again last night……in fact I had last night as the fastest surface since the Tapeta was laid
Needless to say I’m treating these cards with caution…..fortunately I’m not betting on the AW at the moment so it’s a bit of an academic exercise
I’ve just learned something! I use all the times of the winners to calculate my going coefficients, then I use all the times of the winners to calculate my speed ratings. I hadn`t thought about striping out the runs of the `for some reason, they didn`t run as fast as they could` races. As long as you have enough runs to do the sums on, it doesn’t matter if you ignore a few iffy ones. It has got to be better.
I’ve just learned something! I use all the times of the winners to calculate my going coefficients, then I use all the times of the winners to calculate my speed ratings. I hadn`t thought about striping out the runs of the `for some reason, they didn`t run as fast as they could` races. As long as you have enough runs to do the sums on, it doesn’t matter if you ignore a few iffy ones. It has got to be better.
I just tend to use the average of the 3 fastest on the basis that they’re more likely to be the truest run races
Of course if you’re only dealing with a 7 race card it’s possible that all the races will be slowly run then you end up with a bigger going allowance……I keep a list of all the going allowances so I can check from meeting to meeting.
That one at Wolverhampton a couple of days ago stuck out like a sore thumb……I reckon that could be a case where all the races were slowly run
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.