They might even have put the plans out for comment prior to decision-making. I live in hope.

Incidentally, 10% would refer only to the turn - presumably the first turn. Where that 10% starts and finishes and what the gradients are elsewhere is still not stated.

Bruce,

Maybe some of the answers you are looking for are contained in the draft copies of the TRACK MINIMUM STANDARDS documents.

Have you read them ?

Have you provided feedback to the consultation process ?

If you have, what are your main concerns?

And if you have not, why not? There is still plenty of time.

GRNSW CONSULTATION ON TRACK MINIMUM STANDARDS
23/08/2018
GRNSW News

In accordance with GRNSWs commitment to effective stakeholder engagement and transparency, GRNSW invites feedback from industry participants in relation to the daft minimum standards. The draft minimum standards are available here (TAB Tracks) and here (Non-TAB Tracks). Please send any written feedback to [email protected] by 5.00pm on Wednesday 5 September 2018.

This is an important initiative to reduce the risk of injuries to greyhounds and for the future sustainability of the sport. GRNSW looks forward to receiving your valuable input.

http://www.grnsw.com.au/uploads/GRNSW%20TAB%20Track%20Minimum%20Standards(1).pdf

http://www.grnsw.com.au/uploads/GRNSW%20Non%20TAB%20Track%20Minimum%20Standards(1).pdf

Yes, very nice. However, my answer is yes and no. The document is directed at curators and is almost entirely about maintenance, surfaces and equipment. GRV has a similar one.

While very important, I have no particular competence in that area and therefore can contribute little.

My interest is in design and layouts where two factors are in play: (1) I have a good appreciation of what does not work (due to race data analysis and observations), and (2) I can make broad but not specific proposals about building a good track as that demands a large amount of analysis and investigation, such as the job UTS is now doing.

In any event, my query about gradients is not answered in that document. Nor is positioning of boxes and similar subjects.

Let me offer some examples.

At Wenty, the 2001 changes (the last ones) involved some sort of fiddling with the rail alignment approaching the turns. It has never been defined but the effect is clear as a bell - it favours hard railers and disadvantages non-railers more so than a more evenly constructed turn - ie they run off more unpredictably than they used to. Track bias is therefore increased. Much the same happened at Maitland in 2010, as well as at Launceston and (the old) Cannington. All offer excessive bias.

One message you could draw out of this is never to build anything other than a turn with consistent radius all the way round. Dogs have enough on their mind at this stage and do not need to make extra adjustments to their course.

Another example is at Goulbourn where some miracle mind decided to install a 450m bend start which caused the 1 dog to follow a snake like course for the first 20m. In time, the horror was realised and they shifted the start to a kinder 440m trip. At no stage during either of those jobs did anyone assess that the home turn was too flat, causing dogs to be thrown wide (as at Bulli). In other words, Goulbourn levels are out of whack, never mind what the cambers are.

A small excuse at Goulbourn is that they had to cater for the level of the 700m start but that is a pretty weak way of approaching a reconstruction job - like building a leaning tower of Pisa on purpose. (Maybe the extra $1.2m now allocated will address that but we don't know because it is all a secret).

No such excuse is available at Bulli, where they built the current post-flood track with shocking cambers (negligible) from the latter part of the main turn into the straight, also causing dogs to wander off into the distance. No worry for hard railers, though.

Then you have several cases in Vic where that Bulli-like problem also exists. But there, the GRV manual does specify cambers all around the track, more or less. Unfortunately, it does not say where the high cambers start and finish - consequently they tend to flatten out too early. This is a basic engineering matter so if you did that on a freeway you would find cars veering off onto the median strip on turns to the left, and v.v.

Hence my query - where does the 10% start and finish? And will they get rid of the turn before the turn?

Either way, as a courtesy at least, the detail of the Wenty work should have been specified publicly long before work started.

Secondly, that GRNSW reference is poorly titled. It is nothing more than a curator's guide to maintenance. As such, it might help a bit with "the risk of injuries", but not much. Design is infinitely more important.

Well done looks great

Tonight I thought it was outstanding with very little interference at the critical points of the first turn, top turn and home turn.

I think Wenty is the best its ever been

Spot on about racing in WA.

seven races over 302 mt at Mandurah on 20th Sept

is this the first time the track has done this.

as for the new Cannington track, i find it very hard to find one thing that is good about it.

the many things that are bad about it would take me hours to list.
bend starts should be done away with,
as for the surface that the hounds have to run on, do not even get me started on that one.

Sandro,

I agree (ie on the basis of last night's meeting). But who knows why?

My guesses are that (1) the turns provide an even radius throughout, meaning dogs no longer have to change gear on the way round, (2) the cambers are better, and (3) fewer dogs running off due to (1) and (2).

But why do I have to guess?

Mick,

We have now had just 20 races with just 4 reported injuries - all of the soft issue type, and arguably mostly due to the dog's exertion rather than crashes.

Saturday confirms last Wednesday in that most dogs tend to maintain their course when rounding the turn - ie interference is lowish.

Better banking and an even radius would have helped produce that.

The heavy hitters did well - also suggesting interference was low. They did not have to lead to win. That's really good for racing.

The hot times came from strong dogs. Benali (BON 29.29) has been racing exclusively over longer trips but began well and had a clean run.

No doubt they paid close attention to the surface, as is normal for feature nights. (As indicated also by quick times in the first two races for graded dogs).

The lesson is that dogs appreciate a smooth run so don't try to force them to do dumb things like taking a hard left turn after the jump. Track builders just have to imagine they are building the Sydney-Newcastle freeway.

Anthony,

Always something to watch but it is not definitive. As I said elsewhere, dogs did come from behind to win at Wenty. The more important points are (a) whether the dog is blocked on the way round, (b) whether the track creates an extra difficulty - beyond that enforced by the average influence of the box draw and (c) whether the run to the first turn is sufficient to allow runners to sort themselves out before getting to the turn.

For example, Bulli 515m fields do establish a pecking order long before the turn; 472m and 400m runners do not and cannot, not to anywhere near the same degree. Bulli 515m does have an extra bias but it is not extreme and is due to the positioning of the start on a slight bend. But they have no problem getting around the main turn. For the shorter trips, interference plays a much bigger part.

Any bend start adds to the difficulty unless the dog jumps straight to the front - ie the problem is man made, not dog made.

When they started making indentations to the rail at Wenty, Launceston, (old) Cannington and Maitland the unavoidable result was that bias favouring the inside dogs increased, the race was less fair and interference was worse. Launceston was (and is) the worst of those, which is why it is correctly known as a "leader's track".

Related to this is that alleged leader's tracks get that name because they favour a fast beginning railer from the inside boxes. But, in parallel, some of their advantage accrues from opponents which run wide, or in the centre, and thereby cover more ground. This is why, for example, wide runners do not handle the tight Angle Park track but can do well on the longer straights at Sandown - both being identical overall distances (515m). APK times are slower, too (except for Brett Lee).

Also related is the dog's own habits. You might have noticed that Tornado Tears (see Meadows last night) has a penchant for running inside the leader, not around it, which sometimes means it runs slower times. He is not alone.

Anyway, after decades of being known as "the tricky track" Wenty has finally sorted itself out. About time. Let's hope that people at other circle tracks take note.