Printable View
should harness racing drivers have minimum to maximum weights and races be handicapped according to weights like i.e 10kg = front row --10kg back row etc or +10kg down 1 class would like some feedback as i notice ever so frequently that female drivers (who are natural lightweights are always winning putting the others at a disadvantage - should all drivers be for example 60kg - 90kg in weight to drive at races and be handicapped for weight in that range?
Big (pardon the pun) subject there George,
there was a rule which was deleted back in the sixeties that essentially meant all drivers under 10 stone ( about 60 kilos) had to carry weight in/under their sulky seat to make up the difference.
I think to handicap harness horses, ( whilst there is no doubt that weight is a factor) by weights is an unproven but certainly researchable option.
Being a little fat bastard myself I would look forward to finally getting some sort of advantage out of that but I seriously don't like my chances.
If you look at the issue scientifically, when you start measuring the affect of weight on energy when being drawn on modern roller/ball bearings nthat are commonplace these days, the weight factor is ALMOST not worth talking about.
Check out the record of Gary Lang trained horses when Gary hops off and Alison Short jumps on. Best example I can find. They improve lengths. As for how much it helps and hinders and over different distances would need some nifty scientists for sure.
My dad was a light weight & had to carry extra weight.
Used to do it in the gallops too, I think????
The monte riders have a 65k start weight.
Been a few threads on weight, I would rather be pulling a lightweight than a tubby if I was a horse I reckon.
Hi Trish, I saw you Father in a Doco swimming his horses and he was only slight. Would I be right in saying that drivers wear a lot more protective gear these days??
I always pictured you as a big athletic bastard Danno.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I always thought that a lighter weight would have to be an advantage but can remember around the time that Barry Purdon was driving Vics Vance to win the Hunter Cup - claims that his extra weight was not a disadvantage
NO. Women drivers have softer hands so the horse's 9 times out of ten will go better for them.
Been some debate on other social media since the ID following a published piece from a gallops commentator of the effect of the weight of the drivers and if light weight drivers have an advantage. And if there should be a return to the days of minimum weights.
Most of the answer is in the physics but the short answer is yes, depending on how the sulky is balanced and attached. It’s not as straight forward as the weights used in gallop racing as pulling a load is different to carrying a load, but basically with the drivers weight placed behind the axle it removes the load from the horses back and enables the horse to go faster. The weight doesn’t disappear but is transferred to the sulky wheels which are more efficient at carrying a load (condition of wheel and bearings not withstanding!) then a horses leg. Improvement in sulky design is a major reason we race much faster now. Where’s Reg Walsh? I’m sure he can explain it MUCH better then me. And of course a drivers ability is a bigger contribution to success then a drivers weight! But the most successful drivers will be within a relatively small and lightweight range.
Anyway the conversation has got to the point where weighted sulkys can be more dangerous in the event of a fall to Kima Frenning having to drive in a 22kg lead vest!! ( that’s almost half her body weight added)
But sometimes we don’t see the forest for the trees. If standing starts are out for handicapping purposes ( I still think there is a place for them) why do we not do the obvious and add a weighted saddle cloth to our horses for handicapping purposes?
Ok it would be a pain in the butt for the all clear because we would probably have to add weighing in before posting all clear which would be less then ideal, unless a “weight steward” attached them at the start, and checked they were still on at the finish. But there is bucket loads of data available from TBs as to determine exactly how much of an impact each kilo of added weight has.
A ridiculous suggestion, or something to consider as we try to move our game forward?
I have located a previous thread re this subject and have merged it with Dot's posts so you can see previous views re her topic.....
Thanks TC, I knew there was another but could not find it
I would like to see different wheel widths trialled on sulkies. Some tracks are softer than others and I think the thin wheel would dig in. A fatter wheel tread would work better.
Bit like those fat wheeled bikes they use on the beaches these days. Has anyone ever looked into this?
Some trainers and perhaps drivers have looked at this over the years. Not sure if there is as big a variation in track softness, sinkage, these days? The horse cushion the tracks have don't seem to be a negative when it comes to the wheels. It might appear tracks have different softness that could create wheel resistance but there's not much wheel sinkage. You would need to look at surface contact area of a wider tyre compared to a smaller contact area for a thinner tyre and how that effects resistance. Also a thinner tyre can cut through the cushion better than a wider tyre.
Are we talking about for going faster, or for handicapping purposes? Of course varying wheel and tyres widths and diameters plus tyre pressures could be used to handicap if the administration was providing carts and wheels to participants.
On going faster the narrow tyre and wheel creates less drag and has a lower rolling resistence due to friction then a wider wheel and “fatter” tyre on most of our all weather tracks under most conditions so most of the time will be the faster set up.
Interesting. I would like to do penetrometer readings on every track to determine the difference in tracks sinkage. Using average times to determine average track times shows some interesting differences for tracks with similar dimensions / class of racing.
Regardless of theory there is drag that holds back a horse especially when the surface is in any way soft, cut up or testing. The wheels sink less with low weight above and skim over the surface better than one soundly embedded in the surface.
Farmers know this albeit in extreme conditions of ploughed fields but the logic is the same. To load weights out of sight would be onerous and liable to being abused if not transparent.
However assuming drivers have a weight range between 7 stone and 12 stone, coloured wrap around weights affixed easily to sulky structure side bars and evenly weighted on both sides could be applied so that all sulkies and drivers weigh the same ie 12 stone. This will eradicate the perceptions of any advantage. A driver weighs in at say 9 stone and assuming a sulky weighs 3 stone carries zero extra weights. A driver weighing 7 stone would add 2 stone of weights to the sulky, 14 lbs on each side.
All weights used will be designed to fit around and be fully secured and provided solely by the track. They would also be coloured to represent its value in stones and lbs.
The comment about soft hands is often true but most drivers are capable of a relaxed or any grip that is apt for the horse. In many cases lazy or erratic horses at some stage need some firm handed rousing.
Think the above would reduce any severe advantage through weight or track condition with little effort as the drivers own weight are generally a constant. All they need to do is check in an hour before their first drive and get their correct weights for the night.
One scam would be for drivers to bring own set of identical looking weights coloured the same as the track weights but made of an alloy to switch so maybe we should have GPS on each set of track weights........methinks that's enough for now.
Welcome Kevin. I guess the issues to be considered would be ensuring the weights are attached in such away to ensure that they do not become detached during the course of the race. Also is, and I’m thinking many people would say yes, is a weighted, heavier, sulky more dangerous to horse and driver in the event of a fall?
If we were considering this I wonder whether seats could have a 'slot' underneath them which could hold weights which the stewards would place in position when the horses are inspected in the parade ring.
The slot would be filled by a disc with the discs made of various materials/alloys to provide a range of weights
A weight under the seat would distribute the weight similarly equivalent to a heavier driver
The obstacle there Kev is so many different seat and sulky types and attachment methods between the twothat it would currently be very difficult to attach weights under the seat in the manner you suggest, but it seems a good idea.
Following on from what Dot has asked, are the new style sulkies as safe as the older stainless steel carts? Newer carts being heavier and, do they 'crumple' like the ss carts do in an accident?
I made a poor joke/post about Brett Shipway's silks looking big in the sulky the other day
I don't actually know if Brett is even a big bloke
I apologise to Brett if I offended him
He has not asked me to delete the post.
I don't want just little blokes/ladies to be drivers
It would be good if we had a system whereby bigger/average size people are not at a disadvantage
We do not want to be like basketball (where the reverse is true) and if you are under 6' (or even 7') you are lucky to get a go in the higher grades
Brett Shipway ain't a ballerina. The great Gordon Rothacker was no midget and, from that era, Bruce Barron was a VFA ruckman.
Size of brain will always win, no matter your stature.
From memory Jack Carter..Panhandle, (Red and white stripes??) was a huge Showgrounds driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
Showgrounds, December 1979. No lightweights here. Check out the fall on the turn out of the home straight!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7shl8SjHxQ
I had an interesting pm which made a couple of good points on this topic
For a start a difference of many kgs being pulled would only equate to a fraction of a kg on the back (eg gallopers) and would be most pronounced on a soft track - something we do not often have
And don't we want our sport to be inclusive - having to declare one's weight might deter some who are not considered to have the supposed perfect body shape according to whatever the current day's fashion is
Good thing that John Phyland drove rather than rode at Richmond !Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
1924: The Argus reported:
John Phyland, owner of two recent Richmond winners is a retired farmer from the
Balranald district of Victoria, (actually NSW) whence one of the winners Balranald Maid takes her name.
At present Mr J. Phyland is a resident at "Soultline," Flemington, the former home of the late Mr S. P. Mackay. He has a fair number of trotters in work at Ascot.
He is a well known identity at Richmond, where although he is close on 18 stone, he is occasionally seen behind some of his horses.
At present, however, his son, F. Phyland, is doing the majority of the riding and driving for the stable.
Interesting note: John Phyland was the father in-law- of sometimes controversial trainer and punter Cedric (Sid) McLean (Ced married Rose Phyland) , and grandfather of driver John McLean.
I love the historical reports Noel
New Jack well from the Showgrounds days. Jack was not a tall man but appeared as wide as he was tall - in all directions. Always had a smart horse at his Sandown Rd stables - Brahvolo, Jokers Pride were consistent Showgrounds winners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaptor
Great videos of the Showies trots, Noel. A small crowd there is a huge crowd anywhere today. Don't know the date of this December 1979 meeting but the last ever meeting there was in that month. After that, the MVRC allowed double-header meetings rendering the Showgrounds redundant.
Incredulous to believe this was nearly 40 years ago I am truly feeling my age. I might have to go and grab a strawberry milk and a bag of jam donuts in honour of the Showgrounds an watch all of these races.
Thanks for the youtube Noel and thanks for the election over, nearly damaged the keyboard trying to SKIP AD Clive!
Most trainers in harness racing like to race drive their own charges but if experience demonstrates that light weight drivers have an advantage then trainers would have employed lightweights to drive pacers unless deterred historically by inaccurate theory. Many true blue concepts of racing sometimes are not accurate. One example in horse racing is that horses who run on a soft surface and who have won in the mud have an advantage over those who have no mud form. Not so. But the TV and media experts go on about that myth.
Anyway back to harness topic, self interest should see prudent practice carried out in the long term.
But Nic, there are some gallopers that only have success on soft going while there are some that only have success on good to fast
Kevin
Crikey I knew a trainer in UK Jack O'Donoghue who trained jumpers for the Queen Mother and most mornings would wake up to clip clops echoing down our lane.....
Oh yes mudlarkers. Yes some win on dry or wet ground. But if you look at soft ground winners it was in generally smaller less talented fields as good good horses tend to scratch. But a bigger prize money race on wet ground may see a horse with good dry ground form win because that horse is a 6 cylinder machine who can handle soft well enough to beat a 4 cylinder mudlarker. My point is not to look at wet ground horses first but look at classier or better form performers who have no known objection to the wet. Tell me if I am talking baloney but a horse with grit spirit and will to win will do so under almost any conditions of ground, weight and a bad baulk. In a big event I think a jockey will not think twice but in a modest handicap event a jockey won't "knock the horse about" if not going well enough to win as they pass the 600m to 400m markers (L Piggott) or if by doing so results in the horse having to miss work to recover from fatigue or worse.