Sand and the differences between the Vaal and Kimberly

Yesterday the Star Newspaper had an interesting article in its racing section about sand. The reporter tried in a very simplistic way to explain why certain horses were better suited to sand tracks.

My questions relate to the sand tracks at the Vaal and Kimberly. Are these tracks the same I.E. the same sand, depth and density ? Will a horse stabled at Kimberly find the Vaal track different in relation to the going with all things being equal? Which sand track is better and why?

Thanks.

The Emerald Cup and sand races are a feature for this Saturdays card at the Vaal.
I am astonished that no-one is able to help or is willing to help.

'He who asks is a fool for five minutes. But he who does not ask remains a fool forever.'
Meaning: By asking a question, you'll feel foolish for a while, because you lack the knowledge. By not asking and continuing to lack the knowledge, you will remain a fool indefinitely.

'He who loves but knows little about his love needs to find another love.'
Meaning: If you love someone or something you should know everything about the love. If not,move on.

It appears that this lack of knowledge or apathy does not say much for the guys who post on this site.

Olympia

I think the general opinion is that the Vaal sand track is vastly different to the Kimberley sand track, and therefor horses that performs well on the one track will not necesarily perform similarly on the other.

Which track is better? Well I suppose the Kimberley guys will say theire track is better, while the Vaal guys will maintain the opposite; what makes one track 'better' than the other; if less horses break down at the one track than the other, does this mean that the first track is the better track; or if more favorites arrive at the one track than at the other, is the first track then a 'better' track?

I don't think it s a question of not 'willing to help'; it is more a question of no-one really being able to answer your question factually; everyone have their opinions, but that's all they are.

They are chalk and cheese

A_Paul_Ling - Which one is chalk and which is cheese. Was that the first meeting andrew rode at the vaal, if so what was his response, as to how the track runs?

Olympia your questions is to difficult to answer.
Rather ask me how many beers do i drink in a day.
Maybe ask me if i still fantasize about my std. 8 English teacher with the big t..s

Apart from kimberly sand being more red, I think the track design has a lot to do with performance. One of the trainers on winning ways complained about the length of the straight at the Vaal a few nights ago.

I dont think that it boils down to which track is better but rather which centre generates more money and interest. Vaal definitely out performs as far as earnings are concerened and there are biger traiers competing at this center as apposed to Kimberly which seems to be a center for no hopers and horses at there end of their careers that have not erned enough. (no offence)

Thanks guys, I appreciate your input and answers.

Under Starters orders Clyde helped Nico and explained that he did no think Alumites vs steels made a big diff on sand.

Is this correct??

Ah - the 'allies' debate; another where there are no real hard facts to support any opinion; best that I can offer is that I believe that 'allies' are lighter than steel shoes; how much lighter I am not sure; but I don't think that it could me more than .5 kg's at the very most (somebody please correct me if I am wrong) so for the sake of argumemt let's say that a horse with 'allies' will 'carry' 2 kg's (4 x .5) less than one with 'steels'; so make up your mind how much difference that makes.

Regarding Clyde's statement, I think that 2 kg's are 2 kg's, the racing surface does not come into it.

the grip on the sand surface is of extreme importance and you often hear horses slipping when leaving the stalls ..i stand to correction but apparently alumites give you a better grip than steels