Ridecamp: Re: [RC] Mad Science

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:46:41 -0400, Truman Prevatt
<tprevatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Come back east and look at it. What I see is people are showing up with 
>bigger and bigger horses and going faster and faster on the same 
>courses.  There is also the issue of efficiency. Is a 1000 pound horse 
>carrying 200 pounds more efficient than an 800 pound horse carriying 200 
>pounds.  Where is the knee of the efficiency curve hit. The system has 
>to go non linear at some poin.  Other wise I would really be better off 
>getting a 500 pound pony.

All else being equal, any given horse (of any weight) will be able to
perform better carrying less weight than carrying more weight.  That's
why we have weight divisions and count weight carried in BC scoring.
But the question is one of matching the horse to the rider for the
best results.  As, all else being equal, there is for any given rider
weight an optimum horse weight -- either a smaller or a bigger horse
(again, all else being equal) will perform less well.  Otherwise we'd
all be better off riding Clydesdales.  The difficulty comes with
knowing what that horse size is.

>From my experience, I believe that for my 180 pounds with tack a horse
in the 14.1 -- 14.3 height range weighing about 800 -- 850 pounds is
about ideal for most endurance rides.  YMMV.

-- 

Joe Long
jlong@xxxxxxxx
http://www.rnbw.com


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=