Total Energy in tandem reversal???

[RichieP]

Just wanted to point this out. Race just ran 3 minutes ago.

The 3 and 9 raced tandem and at the 4 calls showing on original screen the 3 had the following lead over the 9 using beaten lengths as measure:
1c - 3 leads by 11.5 lengths over the 9
2c - 3 leads by 6.5 lengths over the 9
sc - 3 leads by 6 lengths over the 9
fin- 3 leads by 5 lengths over the 9

using raw config "160" with no adj/var the 9 shows FASTER than the 3 on both total energy and total pace potential. Wow

Anecdotal part is the 3 wins easily at 9/1.

ok

[clore1030]

And yet the figs on the TPR and E/L screen remain properly proportioned...

Hmmm.

Just curious - why didn't you use the variant adjustment?

[Bill V.]

Hi Rich

I see the 9 is beaten by 12 lengths at the first call 7.5 at the second call
11 lenghts in the stretch and 15 at the end

I wonder if this is a case of using a line with over 7.5 beaten lengths
In the newer Sartin programs the guidelines are to not use a line
with over 7.5 beaten lengths and I believe the instructions for some older Sartin programs were to
change all beaten lenghts over 9 to 9 beaten lenghts.

could this be an example of the reason the guidelines were to not use
lines like horse 9's? Maybe the program is over adjusting the the total energy
because of so many beaten lengths

Hope Ted can help with this question

Bill

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by clore1030

And yet the figs on the TPR and E/L screen remain properly proportioned...

Hmmm.

Just curious - why didn't you use the variant adjustment?

Morning Clore
For some reason when I scrolled the horses I wanted to work this race raw so I went with it.

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Hi Rich



I wonder if this is a case of using a line with over 7.5 beaten lengths
In the newer Sartin programs the guidelines are to not use a line
with over 7.5 beaten lengths and I believe the instructions for some older Sartin programs were to
change all beaten lenghts over 9 to 9 beaten lenghts.

could this be an example of the reason the guidelines were to not use
lines like horse 9's? Maybe the program is over adjusting the the total energy
because of so many beaten lengths

Hope Ted can help with this question

Bill

Morning Bill
Could very well be. I posted because at no time during the tandem race was the 9 within shouting distance of the 3.

Regardless it is a blizzard outside and be careful driving bud

[Charlie D]

3 goes from .5 BL to 11 BL - decelerating all time, whereas 9 goes from 12 to 7.5 then 11 then 15 - a gain, then a small loss, followed by another small loss

maybe what your seeing is something to do with that

Just a guess though

[Charlie D]

Using FPS/Energy Calc sheet i put in Club, I get TE at

3 154.44
9 150.56

maybe ALL adjustments are not turned off

[Charlie D]

MMm

For #7 i get TE = 148.75

[Ted Craven]

Here's how RDSS/Spec160 calculates, and a discussion as to why the #9 showed higher Total Energy. Per Richie's settings, there were no ITV or DTV adjustments involved (and no distance equalizations either, as everything was 8f):







Here's how, for example, the Fr2 velocity is calculated for the #9 (Mother), using Spec mode's fixed 8.333 feet per beaten length:

during Fraction 2 the horse made up 4.5 beaten lengths (beaten 12 lengths at Call1, beaten 7.5 lengths at Call2), or 4.5 x 8.333 = 37.4985 feet + 1320 feet = 1357.50 feet in 25.6 seconds = 53.03 feet per second velocity during Fraction 2, per the table above, and close (within a few hundreds) to the 53.09 shown on the RDSS Velocity screen.

The #9 showed better F2 and F3 velocity than the #3 because it made up more ground against the (runaway) pace setter or lost less ground during those fractions. Due to its superior F2 and F3 velocity, the Total Energy for the #9 was somewhat better. The EPR for the #3 was better than the #9 which corresponds to the better 2nd Call velocity of the #3 per the Velocity screen. Though its LPR was worse, the sum of EPR and LPR resulted in a better CPR for the #3 than the #9.

In summary, it depends on what points you measure at. In the Tandem race, the winner was drawing away from the rest, and the returning #9 was advancing against the pace, as shown by the sectional velocity numbers. You could make a separate case that the #3 attended the pace positionally much better than the #9 and is therefore more likely to duplicate the tandem result today, rather than reverse it.

Hope that explains the derivation of the Total Energies from the Tandem in question, at least close enough. (If anyone wants me to match the velocity calculations to those shown in RDSS to the hundredths, meet me in Saratoga and buy me a beer)

Ted

[RichieP]

Hi Ted
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation! Wow