Bill,
For reference, here is the distance only adjustment from 12f to 10f (in the Configure Window, I set DTV and ITV to
OFF, so the
only adjustment being made is the distance adjustment). This shows a Pace of Race Final Time difference of 2:31.2 minutes at 12f minus 2:07.0 minutes at 10f or 24.2 seconds for 2 furlongs, or 6.05 seconds per half furlong (sixteenth of a mile).
RDSS (and other later Sartin software) uses an internal parallel time chart (or "Par Gaps" table, as Doc labelled it - same thing) to help adjust distances. The 'gap' between 12f and 10f happens to be 24.2 seconds at the final. I figured (my own interpretation of what I found inside Val/Spec) that by speeding up the final time for an extracted 10f race by a
lesser time value per half-furlong (i.e. 6.05 seconds versus 6.2 seconds for shorter distances) that this would result in a
slower 10f final time reflecting the fact that that final 2f is typically run at a slower velocity than at shorter distances. Anyway, that was my reasoning. But adjustments of 12 furlong races is a big guess in any case - anything can be happening to a collapsing pace in the final 2 furlongs.
In the actual race on August 5, we know 10f were run in 2:04.8 (2nd last call time), thus the final 2 furlongs were run in 26.4 seconds or 6.6 seconds per half-furlong - Velocity really collapsed during that final 2f. So the parallel time chart in this event was completely out of whack. Much better would have been to just take that actual 10f time of 2:04.8 as the extracted 10f time, perhaps knock a few tenths off. You might end up a bit better than, say, his 9th race, but in any event, one of his slowest.
Actually (note to self), it makes as much sense to me to indeed use the actual 10f of a 12f race, when knocking those marathons back a few furlongs, as using the WAG (wild-assed-guess) of the existing par-gap table. Maybe an update nuance.
Bill, does that help any?
Ted