The consultation period is now open and will run until Friday, 12 July, 2019.

Feedback can be sent via email to [email protected] or you can contact Scott Robins, Director, Safe Racing and Sustainable Breeding directly on 03 8329 1123.

Feedback on these track designs from participants is critical to the decision on the track going forward, GRV CEO Alan Clayton said.

Both tracks have been designed to provide the highest level of safe racing possible including the innovations that were incorporated into the Horsham track rebuild.

The first track for consideration is a never-before-seen one turn J Curve track with proposed starts at 400m and 500m as well as a 300m straight.

While the other option is a U Curve track with 350m, 420m and 500m starting boxes.

Both tracks have 75m transitions into the turns and the radius of each turn is 70m.

David Allan Consulting have designed both options supported by University of Technology Sydney (UTS) with Racing Safety as its highest priority, Mr Clayton said.

David Allan Consulting and UTS are no strangers to developing greyhound tracks having successfully redesigned Horsham greyhound track to be one of the safest in Victoria since it re-opened in 2017.

The J Curve track is a unique design that would be world class, but equally the U track itself represents leading edge track design with safe racing of paramount importance, Mr Clayton said.

There has been no decision made about which design we will use; it is important that we take into account UTSs findings on both of the designs, as well as the vital feedback from participants.

See more here more
EXTERNAL LINK

Honestly, what kind of numb nuts do we have running the show in the 2 premier states

The 2 states that seem to have their act together is Qld and SA

I am warming to the idea but they need to get the banking and transition spot on or we will have dogs hitting the outside fence going around the bend 4 5 6 wide ...at full speed ...

Sandro ...Watching Healesville the dogs fan out over the track maybe this can work but its a huge gamble with the unknown ..

CLICK HERE
Spirals make bends safer and easier to drive through
All high speed road and railway engineers around the globe are using
spirals as transition from the straight to the bend to make the bends safer
and easier to drive through.
There are some tracks where greyhounds do have problems with the bends
and I am wondering why they do not use spirals to solve the problem.
The
transitions from the straights into the bends need even more attention
and they have to be in perfect harmony with the laws of physics and track
greyhound racing. My background is in physics, and I
wrote my first article
about the dynamics of greyhound racing in a spiral bend in the 1970s. So I
hope that my advice is welcome

Velodromes prove how safe sharp bends can be build
Cyclists and greyhounds race at a similar speed and they have similar
problems to navigate a sharp bend in a stadium.
I asked Ralph Schuermann's advice , who is known as the world's most
experienced velodrome and cycle-track designer. More than 110 tracks
have been designed by the Schuermanns all around the world.
Ralph encouraged me and confirmed that spirals and banking are
imperative for safer greyhound tracks.

What happens in the first and third turn without a spiral ?
It is best seen on tracks with small radii like Wimbledon.
All dogs have to reduce their speed in the turn and the sharper the turn, the
more they have to do so. What happens in detail:
-
the dogs have to brake (hard stress to the joints)
-
the dogs have to change direction and run in a tilted position
-
centrifugal force exerts extra stress
To do it all at the same point and at the same time causes a lot
of injuries
and traffic jams. Faster dogs from behind run into the leading dogs. A
homogenous field often does not have a clear run.
Much bigger radii like in Australia are only a partial solution.
There is still the
problem that there is an increasing cross fall in the straight

Through the smooth transition in a spiral bend
there is less traffic jam even in a sharp bend
there is less stress to the joints
there are clearer runs
there are fewer injuries

Banking in harmony with the laws of physics
It is commonly believed that the banking has to start in the straight.
But that is wrong.
The laws of physics and track greyhound racing say that you
have to create a constant banking in a bend with a constant
radius, a small constant banking in the straight line as drainage
and to increase the banking in the spiral

Increasing cross fall in the spiral allows higher banking
Only with a spiral can you achieve the best possible banking. Too little
banking is one of the main causes for injuries, the sand can not withstand
the power of the greyhound feet in the bend. Richard Winnings from Derby
Lane told me that injuries were significantly reduced by higher banking.
The influence of small banking is overrated by people. A banking with 14
reduces the force parallel to the surface only by 3%. If the force parallel to
the surface is too high for that ground, then the dog will slip.
With the form of the spiral and the increasing banking in the spiral the dogs
are guided int
o the bend, so there will be clearer runs and fewer injuries.

he kinematics of greyhound racing in the bend
tan = Fv / Fc
= arctan ( Fv / Fc)
Fv = weight
1 kp = 9,806 N [Newton]
Fc = m*(v^2) / r
V = sqt (r*Fc/m)
with m= Fv[kp] /9,806 =>
V = sqt ( r*9.806/ tan )
Example:
V = sqt ( r*9,81/ tan )
r = 42 m
tan = 7.1 / 4.8 = 1.48
= 56
The speed in this bend is:
V = 16.7 m/sec and
with mass m = 32 kg,
the centrifugal force is:
Fc = m*(v^2) / r
= 32 *(16,7^2)/ 42
= 212 [Newton] = 21.6 [kp]

The kinematics of greyhounds racing in the bend
FrH
Fc
Fv
In the bend the centrifugal force pulls the dog outwards and the dog has to incline to the inside
until there is a balance for the moment of force around his feet: FrC has to be equal to FrV.
With FrC = Fc*sin and FrV = Fv *cos => Fc*sin = Fv *cos
Fv/Fc= sin / cos = tan
The influence of the radius to the centrifugal force.
At Wimbledon racetrack the centrifugal force that the sand and the greyhound
have to withstand is 23.2 /16.4 = 1.4 times as strong as at Sandown.
With m = 32 kg and the assumption that on both tracks v = 16 m/sec:
Fc(r = 36 m) =m*(v^2) / r =32*16*16 /36 = 228[N] = 23.2 kp at Wimbledon;
Fc(r = 51 m) = 161[N] =16.4 kp at Sandown
The influence of the banking to the force parallel to the surface
Fp = Fc* cos .
K
K
Fp
The reduction of forces parallel to the surface by small
banking is not as great as people believe.
If the force parallel to the surface is too high for that
ground, then the dog will slip.
A banking with14 reduces the force only by 3%.
With = 38; Banking = 14; Fv= 32
Fc = Fv / tan = 32 / 0,78 = 41 kp
Fp =Fc* cos 14= Fc * 0,97 = 39,8 kp

Apologies Kev for being of topic & no need to reply Sandro. Just wanted to clear up your statement as you may have forgotten about this contentious issue, but participants in Qld haven't.

Cheers.

Copy paste some designs and send them to Racing Queensland for consultation
Use the Traralgon idea but improve it add in Holger von Boehn design ideas

Steve I remember 30 years ago that Queensland was the place to race dog but since that time its gone down hill because of the lack of foresight by the PTB.......It needs to be member driven to make it happen

It needs to be coupled with first sectional based field grading. Until such time as there is a blended mix of quick starters with slower but stronger finishers in each race (I may add making for much more exciting close finishes at the line)... we will have fallers and accidents happening wherever the first bend occurs.

I'll use Angle Park as an example but could be applied to everywhere...

If 4-5 starters are all running between 4.40-4.52 early to the bend there'll be a great risk of bunching and fallers.

Conversely if the quick beginners are capped at 3 dogs per field wih a blend of early section times in a race, the first bend will be cleaner of injuries and bunching. Then it's up to each runner to boot up the back straight on merit.

Simple really - if you put 8 slow beginners (or 6) in a race to the bend they'll meet up there. The same applies if you have a field consisting predominately of quick first sectional beginners.

The current trend on track design seems to be move the first bend further up the track in the hope that the field sorts itself out before it hits the bend. Statistically this is insignificant while fields are still built the way they are in each race. Because the goal posts have simply been moved as to where the first section on the track gets recorded. But none of that useful data is ever used when building the fields.

Bottom line - how interference-free a race is going to be can usually be determined by looking at the first sectionals in the field of runners over each runners last 4 starts.

I dont like the J track design. My view is that it would be biased towards run-on railers. Leaders wont be able to steal a break given no corners for long distance & many dogs tend to run wide when they get tired. I can see many weak dogs running v wide on that corner similar to Geelong track. Much prefer the U track design to suit all dogs.

Holger is basically right although I would have a small query about where the high camber starts and finishes. The 'Perfect" outcome is also not achievable as the velodrome does not have to cater for a loam surface open to the weather.

To give an example, there are some tracks in Vic where the turn into the home straight flattens out too early (eg Geelong) meaning that some dogs fan outwards at that point - losing ground or knocking down other runners. Races have been won and lost that way.

Still, this is just one aspect of the layout, although a vital one.

More study is needed of the positioning of the boxes, relative to the rail. Too close and interference is unavoidable. On the other hand, tracks with wide spacing generally offer a low interference run to the turn (Hobart, Bathurst, Ipswich).

Re "I'm unconvinced track design alone will reduce interference and collisions" - they already do. To name two, there are substantial differences between Hobart or Mandurah and the main body of tracks around the country. So it can be done, although I am never entirely sure why.

However, your first sectional theory is a bit messy. Sectional performance is reliable only for high grade racers and even they can vary by up to two lengths. For others, anything goes.

The effort should go into ensuring as much as possible that moderate beginners get a clean run through if good enough. That means longer runs to the turn and good even turns when they get there.

In fact, this should be the number one objective as not only does it produce fairer and more exciting contests but it also caters for better economic results across the spectrum (add also wide runners to that theme as many tracks are not kind to them).

Of course, it's easier said than done but we have not really tried, have we?

Richmond has the worst start in the country for 400m, with the accompanying result that the 535m first turn is compromised and too flat - dogs run off. This is reflected in poor winning stats for outside boxes. 618m start could be improved, too, but it has a lot of mates (including at the old Traralgon).

But I don't agree with you that you can't normalise a field based on first sectionals assigning a time banding over their previous 4 starts.

If the various administrations can attempt time graded racing (based on a banding concept borrowed from Ireland), can attempt different track designs with various starting box to first bend positions, why can't they trial a first sectional banded event in each meeting. Perhaps cap them at two races per meeting and see if it reduces interference?

I think you and I agree that there is no single solution. But I do know firsthand that even on a straight track, if you put a whole bunch of firecrackers out from the boxes at one time, the liklihood of one or two being dragged down as they make their way to the rail is far greater.

Remember the old days of staggered boxes (handicap) at Olympic park into hurdles? So the concept isnt much difference except that rather than moving boxes around at varying starting points, the fields have a blended mix based on first sections.

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I'd seen a moderate beginner fielded into a race with quick dogs to its immediate right hand side. To me that's a recipe for interference.

edit - just to remove any confusion about what I mean by sectional banding, I mean put the two or three quickest at the rail, the three moderates at the middle and the slowest early wider out. Dogs are not dumb in the way most of them run. They work out decisions in very quick time on a track compared to humans. So if the ones that need time to boot up have a clearer run by being wider they tend to perform better. And the little frecrackers that start well and get on the bunny immediately get what they want. The rest comes up to the ability of each dog once they clear that first turn.

Happy to agree to disagree... I'm not a fan of 400 starts but there is clearly a market for them... 600s same... But as far as Richmond 535, 717 and the 300 are good... As for the worst start in the country I don't think it is worse than the Ipswich 431...

I have no problem with 400m racing as a principle.

What I criticise is the laziness of authorities, clubs or track builders who put starts in lousy spots when options are available.

Richmond's 400m start could easily be located further round the corner and beyond the fence, thereby offering a more or less straight run down the back straight. Repeat that dose at nearly all other circle tracks.

You can't do this at one turn tracks with any great success as the geometry simply does not offer space to do it. You are always looking into the turn. In which case, the only alternative is to maximise the distance within the space available - eg Bendigo has a 425m but nothing shorter.

The discontinued layout at Traralgon ignored all these points and simply bunged in boxes wherever someone had a brainwave - often on a bend. GRNSW did the same thing when rebuilding Goulbourn with its 450m start, which required the inside dog to perform a S shaped path. The correction to 440m helped a bit but still did not take the option of pushing the start around further and out. It's just lazy thinking. There is no reason why starts have to be on the circuit proper.

Now this I agree on...

Maybe this post should have been " J or U or NO ... Track design for Traralgon "

Imagine I was the owner of a chain of retail shops, and they were all struggling to attract enough customers.
The last thing I would do is open another shop.

Every day the GRV catch cry is "nominations extended " and "nominations further extended" for at least 2 or 3 or 4 meetings.

The only way the industry can accommodate an extra venue with the current nomination rate, is to jump on SA's G6 bandwagon.

No doubt, in their wisdom, they will persist with Traralgon, so I will have to give my two bobs worth.

Go with the U track, so at least the on-course patrons can watch the racing, without having to resort to TV monitors to see the action.

Very true. Sadly, authorities everywhere are ignoring the elephant in the room. At best, they are tinkering at the edges.

There is a well-defined trend towards lower breeding numbers (something which so-called expert reviewers got hopelessly wrong over the last three years or so). It has been there for well over a decade and accelerated when live baiting sagas emerged. Since then, any recoveries have been modest and still leave us with a much smaller platform than existed pre-2015.

Remedial measures have proved largely useless. They all employ minor administrative devices and there is not the slightest evidence that authorities have tried to fathom exactly why people are not breeding and buying more dogs.

To follow your theme, the shops are seeing fewer customers and there is no likelihood that more will come out of cracks in the ground, especially as you are not running any advertising and other promotions are few and having no effect on the basic need.

Broadly, the current situation is that there are not enough dogs; what we do have are of lesser quality on average; race distances are declining; a rising proportion of customers are utilising four-legged poker machines. In each of these areas, there is no indication that a reversal is possible or even being attempted.

Despite that, races continue unabated. Short fields dominate and lower standard dogs can get a run anywhere. In other words, we have a lousy product, livened occasionally by a few really good dogs. It is on life support sustained by mug gamblers who have nothing better to do.

Plainly, the entire schemozzle should be chucked out and the industry re-started on business-like grounds, regardless of how that might affect any existing tracks, clubs or participants. And it must be done nationally.

Unless that happens, boards around the country are failing in their duties and potentially making themselves liable for legal sanctions. It is that serious.

PS: Your point about Traralgon is moot as they will simply say that in the meantime Traralgon dates have been shifted to other tracks.

PS2: The GRSA G-SIX is not really an answer but simply a device to throw up the same old numbers in a different way. Having said that, nationally a 6-dog world is one of the future options in a new world. Ironically, we are half-way there already - although that was not the intention.

PS3: The trots are in a similar predicament. The gallops will get by with the longstanding support of the average Aussie gambler and a respect for horses, as such.

PS4: The objective has to be quality racing at quality tracks with quality entertainment. No exceptions.

"PS: Your point about Traralgon is moot as they will simply say that in the meantime Traralgon dates have been shifted to other tracks."

I agree, so why not leave the Traralgon dates which were shifted to other tracks, where they are now. This raises the issue of whether tracks are under utilized. Why not run 3 or 4 meetings a week, instead of 2 ? It makes commercial sense, just look what the banks do, and now they even reducing the number of ATMs.

Times change, factories, abattoirs, medical facilities, shops, even sporting clubs, close. Life goes on.

Before more money goes into the sinkhole at Traralgon , maybe the GRV should take a closer look at the rationale behind that decision.

There is one saver, though. While Traralgon is replaceable the proposed new layouts represent the only advances made in track design in a century. I don't buy some aspects of them but at least they embrace fresh thinking which is sorely needed in this industry. I will be responding accordingly.

Personally, I would be retaining Traralgon and dumping Cranbourne which adds nothing to the mix and defeats the purpose of creating an intimate experience for the fans (sorry - nothing personal folks, but watching ants moving in the distance does not rate).