Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net
----------
> From: Susan F. Evans <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>
> To: ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: Horse/Rider Weight at Tevis
> Date: Saturday, January 25, 1997 2:52 PM
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Well, it turns out this is the subject of my thesis project, so thought
> you might be interested in some of the horse/rider weight ratios we
> collected on approximately 450 horses the last two years at Tevis.
>
> The average weight carried by successful Tevis completers was 20.43% of
> the horse's body weight. The average weight carried was 181.48 pounds.
>
> The lightest load carried successfully was 14.9%, the heaviest load
> successfully carried was 30.71%.
>
> The average weight carried by Top Tenners was 180.7 pounds, and the
> average rider weight ratio was 20.3%. The Top Ten horses averaged 892
> pounds.
>
> There was no statistical difference in weights carried between the
> horses that finished and those that were pulled. There is also no
> statistical indication that horses carrying less weight finish any
> faster---as a matter of fact, several of the Top Ten finishers in both
> years were among the heaviest riders.
>
> What turns out DID make a significant difference was how much body fat
> the horse was carrying during the ride---or body condition score as has
> been previously discussed in earlier threads. Horses that were scored
> as being very thin AND were carrying heavy weights consistently turned
> out to be the first pulled. Thin horses carrying lighter weights were
> pulled next often---they on average made it farther down the trail, but
> almost every one was pulled before the finish.
>
> Horses that were in good body condition---no ribs sticking out, no
> pointy hips and spinal processes showing---were by far the most
> successful group of horses to finish the Tevis trail and in these
> horses, how much weight the horse was carrying made no difference as to
> how well they placed. During data collection at Wendell Robie Park, I
> remember looking at several horses who were past Tevis winners/Top
> Tenners/Haggin Cup winners (and were again that year) and noticed none
> of them looked like what you'd expect in an endurance horse---they were
> all hard as rocks, but none of them were ribby-looking at all. A few
> looked downright chunky.
>
> The conclusions drawn from at least this particular study was that
> horses are capable of carrying weights in excess of 30% of their own
> body weight for 100 miles, IF the horse has sufficient body fat to
> supply the ongoing demands for metabolic fuel. The thinner a horse is,
> the quicker he is going to run out of energy in direct proportion to how
> much weight he has to carry.
>
> BTW, there'll be a complete article on this project in this spring's
> Tevis Forum that will include more specifics and hopefully explain the
> differences between "too thin" and "not too thin" a little better.
>
> Hope this helps some of you.
>
> Susan Evans