400F times in Computaform????

Have noticed long ago that the 400F in the computaform differs from that in the Photoform.So which 1 is actually right?Does anybody know the reason why this is so?surely it should not be the case.Tia

Always thought Computaform had the rights to this info ?

Ps what's photoform ?

The 400/f times are not actuals ................there is no actual timing of them ................................they apparently apply some formula to the overall time to calculate it ....................it is why ,when I hear it bandied about,I take it with a pinch of salt .
Sectional timing should make them real of course!

(Jason Dedekind should be able to give the lowdown)

Would the speed ratings given in Winning Form be more accurate then of a horses acceleration ability?

Thanks A lot Rob.I also heard some years back that it wasn't actually time,but I have to admit it works pretty damn well.You are right,The sectional timing will do wonders for punting and race analysis.That's the main reason studying HK racving is so much easier than SA racing.Sectional timing takes studying to another level...gives us the chance to be the 'house'

@Bob. Photoforms is an after race extraction that's almost like a post race Speed map.Absolutely brilliant.I'm sure you have seen it before?

Lucky_Dude wrote: Would the speed ratings given in Winning Form be more accurate then of a horses acceleration ability?

I don't know abt WFs speed ratings LD.But in my humble opinion a horse's ability to finish a race off is the most important factor after getting placed well.A horse either wins coz he was placed best,or he had superior acceleration speed from wherever he was,be it over the proper CD...ofcoz.
How is WFs Speed ratings working for you so far?

Heinrich, my sample size is very small and it is showing huge variance. I don't know if I can stomach it.