Synthetic surface review

[pete]

Synthetic Surface Review Released

As we near the end of the 2023/2024 synthetic track season, it is timely to update the industry on the performance of the respective tracks given the Cambridge synthetic track has now raced for three consecutive seasons.  

The below Synthetic Surface Review includes injury and fatality statistics, as provided by Massey University, and gives further insight into the make-up of all three tracks and the necessary maintenance involved to consistently deliver the highest quality surface. 

NZTR has a strong focus on animal welfare and, in view of the industry’s significant investment in the three synthetic tracks at Cambridge, Awapuni and Riccarton, has monitored the performance of the tracks from an animal welfare perspective. 

NZTR constantly reviews the way we operate when it comes to the preparation of tracks, including the three synthetic tracks, and are always looking at how we can improve in this area. In relation to the synthetic tracks, this includes working closely with Martin Collins and importantly utilising the experience gained by Cambridge over the past four years in managing the surface. The lessons learned at Cambridge are conveyed to the other venues to assist with their track preparation techniques. We will continue to monitor data to ensure our venues remain among the safest in the world. 

We are also improving the transparency and communication of information about the synthetic tracks by moving to publish the Clegg hammer readings prior to raceday for all synthetic track meetings. Clegg hammers record the level of compaction of the synthetic profile. The publication of these readings will give comfort that the tracks are where they need to be and avoid speculation and misinformation filling the void. Synthetic surface Review 2021-24.pdf

[Hesi]

This is why Colin Wightman's post would have been ignored as fluff.

The report makes available data for people to comment on, not raconteurial speculation

[curious]

There is some "raconteurial speculation" in Colin's report, I agree, however the fundamental issues raised rely on hard data including measurements and photographic evidence and referencing the same Massey injury data that is in this report.

The data presented here, in fact seems to bear out Colin's reported analysis.

The preliminary data based on the official race day records potentially underestimates race
day events, but still indicates a higher injury rate on synthetic than turf tracks (3.22 [1.97-
4.97] vs 2.21 [1.88 – 2.59] respectively)

That's close to 50% higher.

Edited September 25 by curious