Pretty impressive to say the least

Collisions look less , running is free flowing throughout which to me is set up early with the drop in boxes that set them open closer and in behind the lure apposed to off the track and influencing them to crash left

Grafton (due to its size and width) and many other tracks need this box change drastically

Early days , but it was chalk and cheese to your city 2 turn tracks imop

Thoughts ??

However, drop-in boxes at Shepparton and Horsham have increased race falls and biased winning boxes toward the rail - both as compared with the previous wide-spaced locations.

There was never any discussion, let alone proof, that these changes were desirable.

Grafton - with widely spaced boxes for 350m - has produced barely any falls (I can recall only one) and minimal interference.

In contrast, if you go to, say, Bathurst or Ipswich 500s which have widely located boxes, both offer good running from jump to turn. Dapto, with boxes jammed up against the line of the rail ends up with inside runners veering right and outside boxes gaining the benefit of resultant interference.

More room is always good. Traralgon does not have that. Very jumbly for the first half of the race - albeit no falls yet. We shall see.

Must be the dogs

After the jump, almost the entire field bores over to the rails. Hence you get the stewards mentioning bumps at 150 and 200. They are all bunched.

I would prefer to see the boxes further displaced to the outside but they are not as tightly located as at SHP and HOR.

Whatever, tracks must be configured to avoid such crowding. I gave a couple of examples earlier but the classic is Hobart 461 where all runners go straight ahead at the jump. Why can't its features be copied elsewhere? (Don't ask me exactly what they are because I can't fathom it properly even after walking back and forth across the track). The only clue is that the boxes are well displaced from the running rail but there must be more to it than that. Maybe longer lure arms would help?

This is a scientific matter and so deserves forensic investigations. Plainly, it is no use asking UTS because they have got it wrong three times now. They have a beautiful theory which does not work

NB the 500 start is even more closely sited than the 395m boxes and that's a fixed installation, not a drop-in. Still the same outcome though.

Dogs need space, space and more space. If you jam them up against the rail you will get more interference. How hard can it be?

So far I have seen dogs rail up and come from last to win, stay 3 wide and win and lead all the way and win

That long straight and sweeping corner starts to test the stamina of a greyhound

The 395 and the 500m are much harder runs than what their distances say

You can't have any dog race without any jostling. I have seen more falls and harder bumps up the Capalaba and Richmond straight tracks

Time will be its judge, but at this point, as an alternative design, I think its a winner

I dont believe that even the great Fernando bale has a strike rate like that but Im sure some one will take the opportunity to set the record strait

interference can mean a small bump that costs a dog less than a length

I meant significant by the nature of the interference not the number of incidents

every stewards report at every track has over a dozen bumping incidents a meeting

its the type of interference thats important in my opinion

Sandro,

I generally agree with what you say but I still have to return to my key point - if they were not so jammed up against the fence those bumps and whatnot would be less important. Try watching 24 races at Hobart.

I have to say I am also not a fan of the boxes sitting right on the rail

Its not how they are taught in their early education and pre-training unless they are trialling/pre-training at those tracks with that box set up.

GRV didnt need to invest more than a $1 million with UTS to discover what many studies world wide as far back as the 1970s have established about design factors that can influence a race track and maximise track safety.

Length of straight into the first turn; transition into the turn; radius of the turn, camber on the turns were identified in multiple studies in the US, UK and even here in Sydney by Bede Ireland, as mitigating the extreme centrifugal forces on a dog on cornering and reducing the likelihood of collisions.

So there is nothing new here to inform a new track design, whilst the merits or otherwise of box positioning have always been up for strong debate as the track designers have had mixed opinions. What they would absolutely agree on is that bend starts are not great.

Given that GRV and other bureaucratic regulators with little practical racing knowledge and experience have failed to consult widely it is no wonder we have had mixed results for track rebuilds throughout the country.

The lack of transparency of most reports hasnt helped - but that is how GRV operates in this area and most others. They do not have to answer to participants or clubs - and just to the Minister who appoints them.

Whilst GRV have hitched their wagon to UTS for track geometry and configuration, and used the science they offer to rebuild Traralgon, they have failed to do this in the critical area of track surface design.

Ignoring multiple independent expert reports, they have failed to involve soil science experts in track base and drainage and surface profile design, delivering out dated bog standardand not gold standard track surface design. Our newest track uses the same surface and drainage design principles from 40 years ago. Lucky it never rains in Traralgon.

Again, overseas research and in fact research from UTS, highlights the importance of stability in the surface - common sense really given that most dogs will be changing the leading leg on cornering, decelerating, facing strong centrifugal forces and likely collisions.

Naturally track surface stability is needed all round the track but magnified on the turns for these obvious reasons.

Any redesigns of existing 2 bend tracks involves a challenge and competing choices and outcomes. By applying the above track design principles including transitions into the first bend, to help a dog in theory to traverse a turn more easily, there will be an even tougher task for dogs drawn out wide to get across.

Being trapped out wide can increase the likelihood of collisions irrespective of the greater box draw advantages and bias to inside runners. Just consider the Meadows and Sandown when drawn out wide.

Our races have 8 runners and are not solo trials so theoretical modelling can be way off reality.

If they model the benefits of transitions and a bigger radius to minimise risk of injury, do they model the impacts of dogs trapped wide on these 2 bend tracks?

GRV say they have remediations or rebuilds on the radar. You would hope that proper consultation occurs and any scientific research is transparently shared so all options are properly considered, including the reality of racing with 8 dogs.

Critically, GRV cant ignore any longer the soil science company expertise to ensure we have modern track surface design that is best practice - just as other sports demand for their elite athletes. Our dogs deserve it.

Interesting theres a belief that inside draws are advantaged , and app from drop in boxes even more so going off Bruce

From 24 Traralgon races so far only 5 insides have saluted ? Hardly concurring the theory

The reports on the 8 dog fields races thus far are a load of crap which is why I asked for thoughts , not bullshit brushes that are inadequate to negative results let alone being constructive evidence to move forward

I find your deceleration theory spot on and would contribute tenfold to entering a corner with the safest or minimal collisions

Ive often thought that the only way to get dogs from boxes through first turns is to help them or take away what makes it so consistently hit and miss
Speed and being out of control are the two main problems

If I was to take RL heights with a laser , Id bet anything that on all tracks aust wide
From infront of box 1 to the first corner it would be DOWN HILL and if from box 8
It would be even greater

Reverse this design and make it uphill , id guarantee the crashing and unpredictability would be halved at the very least
Why ? It helps with deceleration at a point in the race where all are at top speed and bordering on the edge of out of control

I Could be wrong , but it cant be worse then what we endure week to week now
Which is dumb , zero common sense and zero welfare Under the current model of 8 dog fields and no seeding, all kamakazying into a corner over crowded in wrong or un preferred positions for the dog

Amazingly reckless beyond belief

Good to see serious comment on tracks.

1. On surfaces etc I have no expertise but nor have I seen any formal comment on what is wrong with the status quo. I take it you are talking about shifting sands but if there is a fundamental issue it needs to be detailed and itemised so we know what we are talking about. Note that GRNSW does have specific expertise, Bill Wilson, and he has visited GRV but I have no idea what happened.

2. On uphill running I once heard a very experienced veteran trainer suggest that the approach to the turn should be uphill in order to slow the dogs down prior to the turn. The theory sounds good but I doubt the execution is practical. My impression is that within the first 200m the dogs will be going flat chat regardless of any modest rise or fall in the linear levels ie their urges and their abilities will exceed any attempt to slow them down. On the other hand, at the end of the trip it would be a different matter as they are tiring at that stage (Hobart 461 is said to have a slight rise there)

3. Several mentions of radii. I covered this in another article, noting that many Vic tracks owned turns of 51m-53m when the ideal would perhaps be a little bigger than that. However, this also involves the question or how much of it is there ie if the back and front straights are too close together (as at Warragul) then there is not enough of a turn to promote ideal running. They are less able to settle down and maintain a steady course so more interference results. The same result would occur if the radii are not consistent all the way round. In that event you end up with poor outcomes such as those at Maitland, Wenty, Launceston and the old Cannington where the oracle was allowed to cutaway the rail at the start of the turn. All that did was to bias results further toward really hard railers from inside boxes while simultaneously causing less neat dogs to veer out.

4. Sandown and Meadows encourage much different running. The two cannot be compared. Its all due to the shape of the circuit. Outside boxes do relatively better at Sandown, for example.

5. Working in the dark? There is a screaming need to itemise in detail the measurements of every track using a qualified surveyor to do it. Only then can we start making good judgements.

6. We can guess but it is hard to know who does what out of GRV/UTS/Allan. What we do know is that UTS has a pre-disposition to look for safety at all costs hence their regular recommendations for straight track racing. But most of their recommendations are just that proposals or calls for trials put to the authorities. By far their worst punt has been the installation of tightly located drop-in boxes at three tracks now. How they justified this in their own minds is unknown but there is no way it suits the typical greyhound race. As a minimum it adds to crowding and therefore interference the data shows that at Horsham and Shepparton. I am in no doubt that Traralgon will justify uprooting all the boxes, widening the racing surface and offsetting the starts by some metres. That is what happened at Grafton which also involved UTS and everyone is very happy there. Puzzling, isnt it?

7. Winning boxes should always end up in the order 1, 8, 2 which simply reflects the engineering rules about which runner will get the easiest run to the turn. If they are different or excessive, then something is wrong. Need 500-plus samples for verification. By the way, there is something of a fixation with many trainers about the worth of the 8 box. In fact, it is good if the dog jumps well. If it doesnt, its a hindrance.

8. Bede Ireland was a dog owner and a qualified engineer but he failed to create a good track at Albion Park partly because the area available was restricted (by trotting demands). However, the first turn and the location of the 600m boxes are poor. He guessed wrong because he (or the industry) had no suitable historical data to work with. In my own case I ended up with lashing of data to show what did not work but that does not necessarily help to define what would work. But at least it informs us what to avoid in a repeat effort.

9. So far, I find the Traralgon running jumbly. I have no trouble accepting that box 1 or whatever is not dominating as we are dealing with a layout and sweeping turns which are intended to promote chances for all. However, it is all being biased at the moment by the crowding generated by poor box placement.

I will rest for the moment.

Re track surfaces which broadly includes base, drainage, surface profile ( top 6 inches), sand type and maintenance protocols, suffice to say that GRV commissioned independent reports as a part of the objective to enhance track safety.

These reports and track audits of surface conditions were completed by soil science companies as far back as 2014 and include the DEXIS Report in 2018, which made (25)recommendations on track surface alone and more recently the 2021 Des Gleeson Report on track harrowing and reconsolidation (one aspect of maintenance).

The reports are not publicly released and wrapped up as normal in GRV confidentiality restrictions, whilst it is relevant that the failure of GRV to act on the DEXIS Report prompted leading trainers to have a series of meetings with GRV in late 2020, facilitated by GOTBA.

GRV have acted on (2) of the (25) DEXIS recommendations and this is the reason GOTBA have maintained pressure on GRV to do better and support our track-men and clubs, by importantly engaging soil science company expertise ongoing. GRV have not done this as yet. Much of DEXIS required this engagement. The Gleeson report also demands it so that soundly based KPIs can be established to assist trackmen.

GRV have stated publicly that they endorse the (17) recommendations from the Des Gleeson Report, but on exposed form who would have confidence in that?

GRV management, the ICG and GOTBA endorsed the DEXIS Report but here we are more than 3 years later, without implementation and after a major track rebuild that should have taken advantage of some innovation for track surfaces to make the track mans life easier and guarantee more consistent and less variability in surfaces particularly after rain and irrigation.

Even drainage rates and a capacity to cope with excess water are critical; just as having measurement tools that are best practice to assist track men assess their conditions, are also.

Not every piece of supposed scientific design advice will prove 100% correct as design theories on track geometry including box positioning proves over the journey. The real life experience and common sense from observation has to play a part, as you point out.

However, to fail to use ongoing expertise on track surface, which all other codes and elite sports bodies do is a major fail for our code in this State, as we deal with 40 year old track infrastructure, modern drainage methodology now available to us, and a demand to prepare elite surfaces for elite athletes.

I wouldnt like to be a track man - it is a very tough job working with sand and heavy schedules for both trialing and racing and all sorts of weather conditions.

Lets hope that the soil science experts are finally brought in to assist and ensure that any track remediations are in fact gold standard and not bog standard, and maintenance protocols are informed by the science of working with sand.

We also cant forget that we have some very experienced track men that are a key part in our future, including mentoring our new track men as they gain the experience needed in their demanding role.

Thanks for the summary - I guess.

I am the proud owner of a copy of Track Preparation and Maintenance Manual 2010 (40 pp) - sent to me by J Stephens. It is informative and seems complete except for one point.

(That point is it does not specify exactly where various cambers start and finish. Of special interest is that observations and frequent stewards reports show that the turn camber cuts out too early, leading to tiring dogs running wide and potentially disrupting other runners).

Anyway, right or wrong, it addresses most of the points you make.

Presumably the Manual has been updated? However, I am assuming it does not meet your requirements. It is also directed at maintenance rather than construction.

Either way, accepting that any shortcomings in surfacing are not good, it seems to me that effort would be much more profitably directed at design layouts and perhaps equipment - in addition or instead of.

Or, to put it another way, we need regular annual audits of what's working well and what isn't. Desirably that would be done independently and publicly.

Meanwhile, the overall issue of the failure of GRV and others to release information is not only disgraceful but verges on being illegal. They are a public body and it is their duty to respond to reasonable requests. This track thing is just the tip of the iceberg. If they or the Minister are not responding it is time to go to the Opposition and/or to one of the various bodies which supposedly act as Ombudsmen.

PS I have long since stopped asking questions myself as they never answer my queries (or not since Stephens was there). Of course, I am not a Mexican nor am I licensed - just a customer.

PPS At least Vic data presentation and variety is far, far better than the rubbish dished up by Ozchase. That's digressing but I put it in to be balanced.

Your are basically correct but that does not eliminate the option of making races more predictable by eliminating man-made obstructions.

The key point is that every time you add a degree of difficulty to the punting caper you make it harder to achieve profits. There comes a time when that customer says to hell with it, I'm quitting. Note that poker machine returns are far better than racing returns unless you can find some "overs".

The second matter is that many/most track faults are fixable so why not do that? If you did that in a a two-up game you would be chucked out in a flash.