> Where Dr. D.B. (...S), Ph D "proves" that "The larger horse is carrying
> more weight per unit of strength!" ... I'll be she could apply that
> same priciple to Trucks hauling trailers too. Chevy S10 anyone?
Actually, the same principle DOES apply to hauling. WHether the truck is
carrying the weight in the bed, in the body or on the back has the same
effect on the engine and the drive train, and if you compared the amount
of horsepower per pound put out by a Chevy S10 vs a 1 ton dually you
would find that the S10 does not compare favorably.
Additionally, however, when it comes to pulling a trailer, it is not just
pulling capacity that is of importance to you (i.e. horsepower and
strength of drive train), but additionally stopping power and handling,
and if your trailer outweighs your truck by too much it is kinda like the
tail wagging the dog. I used to pull my horse trailer with a Toyota 4wd.
Two horse with only one horse in it. The truck had a different engine
(chevy) different transmission (buick) a reinforced suspension, drive
train, and hitch so pulling wasn't any problem. Stopping and handling
was a whole different story (and I would never have put any bigger of a
trailer on the back as I was already borderline unsafe) and it made me a
very careful, aware, defensive driver. Pulling a 5th wheeler actually
transfers some of the weight from the trailer to the truck, and therefore
you can handle more weight with a 5th wheeler than a bumper pull--why do
you think they don't make 6 horse bumper pulls.
> DDB(S) is on my hogwash list so until I hear it from someone I trust,
> sounds like hogwash to me.
>
I have always considered what a person says to be more important than the
person saying it, so even if you don't care for many of the opinions that
a person has, that doesn't mean I have to discount everything they say.
And the fact of the matter is, a horse has to carry around weight whether
it is on his body or on his back, and he has to have the strenght to
carry it around. When it comes to lbs/hp DDB's (rather crude) formula
works fairly well. This is talking about the engine power of your horse.
> Diane's point about cannon bone and weight makes a lot more sense
> My TB has good 8.5" cannons, but even at 15.3 he looks very dainty
> next to some of the QH's at the ranch. I'll have to measure Thunder's
> cannons some day, but if they're under 10" I'll eat a powerbar.
It is not only the horses legs that have to carry a rider's weight. It
also must be carried on its back, and this is where smaller is better.
Ask any engineer whether a long bridge or a short bridge will carry more
weight. Having worked in structural engineering myself, when it comes to
bridges, shorter is better. And the structure of a horse's back is very
much like the structure of a suspension bridge (which is why horses carry
weight better slung under their back than they do over it, but nobody is
going to ride that way--it is, kinda, the way a harness works though).
If you want a weight carrier, look for a horse with a short coupling
across the loins and alot of depth through the flank, then imperfections
in structure will not have as great of effect on the ability to carry
weight. Talking about cannon bones and back structure is like talking
about the drive train of your horse.
If your horse is so small that you and all your tack outweigh your horse
(the example of pulling a trailer with an S10) then I would start to
worry about stopping power and stability. But I don't think even Deb
Bennet would suggest that you get a 250 lb horse (even though it is
probably a better weight carrier).
kat