3f - 2 ½f - 2f - 1 ½f

July 17th @ 9.44 p.m.

weights-and-measures.com,

I went to the race course today, and you might be interested in what I saw. From the furlong poles, sprayed right across the grass in white paint in letters over 20 feet high, was the following:

3f
2 ½f
2f
1 ½f

The letters were sprayed from the rail outwards, and so all the horses ran straight over them. This was the first time I have seen this done, and the first time I have seen ''f'' used for furlong. When I asked why they had sprayed the course, I was told it was for the TV viewers, so they could visualize where the horses were on the course. This must be true because the letters were sprayed facing away. That is, the letters were upside down for the oncoming horses and jockeys.

Jim Dandy



Re: 3f - 2 ½f - 2f - 1 ½f

July 18th @ 6.33 p.m.

Jim Dandy,

Thanks for the interesting info. I've never seen statute furlongs marked liked that on a racecourse, can you state which racecourse it was?

Like you, I've never seen ''f'' used for the statute furlong. Although I have heard that on highway signs in the United Kingdom ''m'' is used for the statute mile. Sometimes there is a space between ''m'' and the number, but not usually.

10 1/2m
10m
10 1/2 m
10 m

Can you state whether or not furlong posts were used? I can't see how a proper race could be ridden by the jockeys without furlong posts, but I just want to know if the posts were definitely there. All racecourses that I have seen have furlong posts, that run down to the last 1/2 furlong post that is just before the finish. What you were told about the sprayed on grass furlong markers being for the TV viewers must be true, because I can't see a jockey having any use for them.

red & white post = even numbered statute furlongs
black & white post = half statute furlongs
green & white post = odd numbered statute furlongs

9 stt.fu. = green & white post
8 1/2 stt.fu. = black & white post
8 stt.fu. = red & white post
7 1/2 stt.fu. = black & white post
7 stt.fu. = green & white post
6 1/2 stt.fu. = black & white post
6 stt.fu. = red & white post
5 1/2 stt.fu. = black & white post

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

Erm

'Jim Dandy' didn't post that here.

Did he?

I recently drove past Thirsk Racecourse. As I approached, there was a sign giving the distance to the entrance. It said: "680 metres"!

The phrase: 'three furlongs' sprung to mind

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
I recently drove past Thirsk Racecourse. As I approached, there was a sign giving the distance to the entrance. It said: "680 metres"!

The phrase: 'three furlongs' sprung to mind
>>

An error of at least 10% - 680m is a little less than 3.4 furlongs.

i was in Old Henry's Freehouse in Islington, Middx, and they had several countries racing on, and I even heard the Suffolk Downs commentator (Boston, MA) say 3/8th of a mile to go.

I thought maybe the furlong had gone the way of the stone over there, but his next comment was that there was 1-1/2 furlongs to go. Perhaps sayign 3/16th of a mile was too much for him!!

Ireland was still using the 'f' word in their racing. Wonder if they will after they change all the speed limits next month?

S.Cruple

re (TB):
"The phrase: 'three furlongs' sprung to mind..."

re (martin):
"An error of at least 10% - 680m is a little less than 3.4 furlongs".


REPLY: Yes, but three furlongs is nearer to 680m than four furlongs or half a mile.

In just the same way, if a signpost in France or Equatorial Guinea gives the distance '4km' when the distance is actually 3.51km, you could say that there was an error rate on that sign of around 14%

680m has an implied accuracy of about 1.5%

3 furlongs has an implied accuracy of 33%.

Had you have said 3½ furlongs I would probably not have responded

re (martin): "680m has an implied accuracy of about 1.5%"

REPLY: Yes, but we don't *need* or *want* an accuracy of 1.5% on a signpost. We want intelligible approximations as to how far away it is and how long it will take to get there.

One of the daftest examples of this sort of thing I have ever seen (but by no means the only one) was a sign at the Robert Burns Museum, near Ayr, which signed a local church as '767m' away. An 'implied accuracy' of just over 0.1%!

It was always the practice to give distances up to 660 yards as '1/4 mile' and distances between 660 and 1100 yards as '1/2 mile', and between 1100 and 1540 yards as '3/4 mile', and so on.

Nothing much wrong with that

I am normally happy with 10%. Knowing that I take about 1 minute to malk 100m, I can estimate my time between point A and point B. For example, my office is currently 1100m from my tube station. It takes my just over 11 minutes (before I allow for traffic lights) to walk the distance. Alternatively I can take a second tube and walk 300m, or I can catch a bus.

Working to the nearest 1/4 mile in this situation is stupid.

re (martin): "Knowing that I take about 1 minute to walk 100m, I can estimate my time between point A and point B. For example, my office is currently 1100m from my tube station. It takes me just over 11 minutes (before I allow for traffic lights) to walk the distance...working to the nearest 1/4 mile in this situation is stupid".

REPLY: 'Stupid' is surely an exaggeration at best. You lay great emphasis on the fact that you think people need to know it is, say, '11 minutes' walk from A to B' rather than '10 minutes' or '15 minutes' 0r 1,100 metres, not 1,000 or 1,200.

But life is full of approximations. In a Continental metric country, no-one would, in conversation, give a distance as 1.1 km, or 1,100 metres. They would say '1 km' or maybe '1.5 km', but not '1.1 km'. In the example you give, it would be sufficient for everyday purposes to know that it is around half a mile to around three quarters of a mile, or 'about three quarters of a mile'.

A good rule of thumb, allowing for things like traffic lights, crossing the road etc. (or making a mobile 'phone call or tying up your shoelaces) is that it takes 5 minutes to walk quarter of a mile, and 20 minutes to walk a mile, unless you're exceptionally quick, that is.

I'd accept that 100m (metric measurement) a minute (non-metric measurement) is a good walking pace.

100m/minute is, however, not an approved S.I. unit and I think is also illegal (or 'not permitted') under European Directive EC/80/181...can't have that, can we?

4mph = mile in 15 minutes,
3mph = mile in 20 minutes,

Simple!

So far as British road signs are concerned, there are sensible regulations in Schedule 16, Item 6 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S.I. No. 3113), page 389. I repeat them in full below:

(1) (a) distances over 3 miles being expressed in miles to the nearest mile

(1) (b) distances of 1/2 mile or more but less than 3 miles being expressed to the nearest 1/4 mile with the fractions 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 being used, and

(1) (c) distances of less than 1/2 mile being expressed in yards to the nearest 10 yards; other than...[SNIPPED]

(3) Where a sign includes distances expressed in both miles and yards, the abbreviation "m" shall be used to indicate those distances expressed in miles

______
ENDS

TB:
100m/minute is, however, not an approved S.I. unit and I think is also illegal (or 'not permitted') under European Directive EC/80/181...can't have that, can we?

4mph = mile in 15 minutes,
3mph = mile in 20 minutes,

Simple!

metre:
Accepted European estimation is to walk 4 km per hour at a leisurely pace.

And?

He just wanted to pretend to know metric again, Bryan.
(he tends to "over-pretend" though, a bit of a giveaway. He also make a lot up).

martin:
<<For example, my office is currently 1100m from my tube station>>

OH MY GOD ! Have you *really* measured it?

SteveH wrote

<<
OH MY GOD ! Have you *really* measured it?
>>

No - I estimated it by looking at the 1km squares on a map.

You mean you didn't just walk it and estimate?

[stares at screen with a dead-pan look that is best described with the letters FFS]