Re: Up Hill or Down

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/10/00 7:32:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, dfletche@gte.net 
writes:

<< > Well, you're on to the next question already. We still don't have a
 > definitive statement from the horseman-observer that a horse standing on a
 > sloping plane, nose down, receives more weight on the forelegs--before any
 > contortions take place.
 
 If the horse stands with legs square underneath on a slope, then CG moves
 forward and more load is carried by the fores. But horses adjust
 (contortions is a loaded word ->

A bit like flat earther, eh? How do you like the word hypocrite?

> all athetes contort) to the environment. I
 don't stand on a 12/12 pitch (45 degree) roof the same way I stand on the
 ground. Neither do horses move on hills the same way they move on level
 ground.> 

Horses are quadrupeds--this is easily seen in the wild, although I hear tell 
they often become bipeds when properly TRAINED by intelligent and experienced 
horsewomen. 
 
 >Once that is established, simply, without any
 > formularific obfucation, then we can proceed to the second assertion, that
 > the horse is capable of countering the effects of gravity by crouching
 lower
 > behind, as, it is said, by moving his rear legs forward--that is moving
 mass
 > forward, underneath his body.
 
 He is not moving mass - he is moving his legs forward. >

Legs with no mass. Interesting concept--indeed, a very complex calculus.

>That does 2 things.
 Assuming for the moment that the legs are straight, the top line is sloped
 to the rear in reference to the slope>

Forget reference to the slope. Now you're sidestepping the issue--the horse 
is still canted downhill, receiving more load on the forelegs--attempting to 
lessen that extra load, granted, but not negating it. 

 >and will be somewhat more level in
 relationship to gravity thus preventing that forward movement of CG of  a
 horse standing square on the slope.>

You must have come into the argument late. Heidi didn't say "more" level, she 
said "level". And you hopped right on board and "did the math" for her. 
Duncan bought it.

 >(Actually he will probably not keep his
 legs quite as straight thus lower his back more). Because his legs (base of
 support) are move forward, the load is somewhat transferred to the hind.>

What's all this hedging with "somewhats" and "mores"? Thought you did the 
math and proved me wrong without even rising from your computer desk. 
Remember, you are the horseman and astute observer and I am the flat earther. 
 
 
 >
 > Looking at the second aspect, hoping beyond hope that elementary physics
 > remains as it has been for at least the past two weeks, let's investigate
 the
 > crouching phenomenon.
 >
 > If the horse's forefeet are sitting 24" lower than his hind feet, and if
 the
 > mass of the hind legs must move forward to accommodate a 24" crouch, a}
 can
 > it be done and, b} where does the center of mass go and, c) how does this
 > affect the stride efficiency and, d) is this compensation, if it can
 possibly
 > exist, healthy?
 
 >a) yes>

Picture, please. Anyone. Anywhere. Defend the scintillating math!

 >b) very minor movement forward (for all practical purposes no change - not
 much weight in the leg) - but the base of support is moved forward at a much
 greater rate.>

An inch is worth a mile? How many inches to overcome the effects of a 45 
degree incline in an 8' horse? Do the math, puleeeeze! And please count the 
weight of the legs for something--make it easy on yourself and call it 50 
lbs. 

 >c) compared to level ground, decreases. But nobody said that they could go
 downhill with the same efficency as on the level.>

Stride efficiency, I'm talking about. Heidi says her horses show up at vet 
checks refreshed after downhill speed--metabolic efficiency, she infers. I 
dispute the safety of such maneuvers, and that's where stride efficiency 
comes in. If the horse has to levitate its forelimbs to do this magic trick, 
then the hind end, particularly the semitendinosus/suspensory, hocks and 
stifles receive exta punishment. But I don't think the horse can do it, 
anyway. I think, instead, he'll come down hard on the forelegs--unless he is 
actually sliding down the hill on his hinds--and that would not be a trot. 
But, hey, I'm perfectly willing to believe a picture. Anybody? Anywhere? 


 >d) is a riders weight healthy for a horse, is racing healthy, is me carrying
 a 40 lb backpack healthy, is life healthy?>

Are your bridges healthy? Is this what you say to the inspector when he tells 
you your design has nothing to do with reality? "Aw, people are killed waling 
across the street."  6th grade debate tactic--you're learning bad lessons 
from some of the group. 

> It certainly requires much
 stronger muscles (paticularly hind). I will leave it to those better trained
 to get into more depth on that question.>

Dropping back to punt? Three failed ends around and you're going to punt? 
This close to the goal line? You've got Duncan convinced. And Heidi loves 
your math. Finish it out and show me how you can eliminate extra stress on 
the forelegs going downhill. According to you, it's extremely elementary. 
Only flat earthers can't figure it out. According to Heidi, only easily 
beatable morons can't accomplish this. 
 
 > I'd love to see a trotting horse moving down a significant incline with a
 > level back, first. I can envision a horse sliding down a hill on his hind
 > legs, front in the air, in order to achieve a level back--but not a horse
 at
 > a trot.
 
 I will leave this to others - my Peruvians don't generally trot. My guess is
 that the back is probably not level, but lower than parallel with the slope.
 And if the slope is steep the gait is probably more of a 2 beat shuffle
 without much if any suspension - but I am now into speculation.>

You've been into speculation from the git-go, Pard. If the back is not level, 
then the horse is taking more weight in front. And if a hind leg and a fore 
leg are on the ground at the same time, going downhill, then there must be an 
incline to the back of the horse. I know of no gait where there isn't overlap 
between at least one foreleg and one hind leg--do you? Unless the horse 
becomes a biped, as Heidi suggests and you have speculated.
 
 > All I need is a picture of this being done and I'll concede the entire
 point.
 >
 > ti
 
 Duncan Fletcher >>

Actually, I've got a couple of pictures: Roy Rogers and Triigger; the Lone 
Ranger and Silver. Is that the way Pasos move? I thought they were more like 
eggbeaters. 

ti   


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