Re: RC: Up Hill or Down

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/10/00 2:49:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, CMKSAGEHIL 
writes:

<< What you are saying is that this does not result in more weight being 
placed on the forelegs vs the hindlegs? Don't need a long academic 
dissertation, just yea or neigh. Let's get past this one before we entertain 
the next simple concept.  >>
 
 No argument where the CG of the body is, Tom.  But the positioning of the 
legs makes all the difference in the world as to where that weight is being 
supported.  And except when the horse is standing still and square, he may be 
supporting less or more with a given set of legs, depending on where he puts 
those legs.  Back to the dressage example--when a horse is sitting on his 
haunches, he hasn't altered what parts of his body weigh the most, but he has 
shifted 100% of the support to the hind end.  In fact, he is designed in such 
a way that he becomes more coordinated when he shifts his weight to the rear, 
and less coordinated when he shifts it to the front.  It is easier to make 
the shift to the rear with the dynamics of movement than it is when standing 
still, but even the static horse with founder can do a pretty fair job of 
shifting the weight to the rear simply by placing his rear feet further 
underneath himself than normal.
 
 Heidi >>


Whoops, one problem at a time. I need to hear from the "observant horseman" 
before moving on to your point. Once he agrees that the laws of physics have 
not changed since I went to bed last night, then we can talk about how 
probable it is that the horse can overcome gravity in the way that you 
suggest.

ti


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=